Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[John the builder]

Movable vehicle is not a building: Victory for tiny homes in landmark case
21 Feb 2020



And so, therefore, did the council numpties.
.......................

Seems that moveability is the critical factor.

if it is a vehicle (and a caravan is a vehicle) then it is not a building unless immoveable AND permanently occupied.... moveability is a indication of not immovable.

Immovability and what it is is still a live issue? (as is permanently occupied)but if moeaveble it isnt a building.

[John the builder]

in terms of this thread this is a victory against bureaucratic power that seeks to intrude beyond its power.

this is a battlle won in a big war but a win for the little guy against the full resources of the council and govt!!!!!

[Perry]

But wait! To fix the problem, Taxcindy Tooth Fairy et al will re-write the RMA, being the problem in the first place. And of course, they will make it worse!

[Bluecoat]

councils blimming allow high rises by the airport yet the place I am looking is atleast 15-20 Km's away.

"The property is also subject to an overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan defined as Infrastructure: Aircraft Noise Overlay - Moderate aircraft noise area (MANA), Auckland Airport - moderate aircraft noise area.


"That overlay restricts development to a density not exceeding 1 dwelling per 400m2 site area. Which means the property cannot be developed with a second dwelling of any size. There is no basis for which resource consent could be recommended for approval for proposed development exceeding that density"

605m2 section house needs a good reno, (not for faint hearted), cant do much to add value - cant have more than 2 groups of occupants, such as demolish and build duplexes or even extend and have two groups like upstairs or downstairs.

What a farce !

[Perry]

The only common denominator with councils and common sense is the letter "C."

[Wayne]

The only common denominator with councils and common sense is the letter "C."

Are you suggesting that the rule is wrong in this case or just putting the boot in?

[Perry]

How would you explain the-not-obvious-to-bureacrats-notion (that needed to be pointed out by a judge) that if it's on wheels and it's movable, it's not a building?

[Davo36]

I would say councils will get this loophole closed pretty quick.

They likes their development contributions, reserve contributions, resource consent fees, building consent fees, infrastructure growth fees and so on.

The also like being in control.

[Perry]

In the mailbox today, was a tear-jerker from the local muddle-headed council wallahs.

I've cut and pasted some parts of the printed item, as it does not seem to be replicated on the Council's web site.

I wonder if the smiling lady Mayor read the whole thing through, carefully? Silly me - of course not.

The boxed bits are excerpts from the council's paper connmunication.


Reality? Whazzat?

[Davo36]

Yep. Look, taking a pay cut would be immoral:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12325502

[Perry]

Ahhh, yes. Rottenrua. Given their past history, no surprises, there.

Share in the grief of Ratepayers?

Hell, no! We are the chumpions of the de void.

[Perry]

Sensible or Sinister?

Cabinet approves new legislation to fast-track resource consents and boost economy as it emerges from lockdown

3 May 2020

As the country braces for a one-in-100-year recession, Cabinet has agreed to a law change that will block the public from the resource consent process in order to fast track projects that create jobs and stimulate the economy. Environment Minister David Parker said new legislation was expected to be passed in June to allow for faster Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting of development and infrastructure projects, in response to the damage the coronavirus pandemic was having on the economy.

"We think it's justified to put aside those normal rights of participation and have a narrower group of people make these decisions centrally."

Block the public? How's about blocking the councils?

Wonder if the fees which councils screw developers with will also be determined by this "central, narrower group?"

This article makes intriguing reading, too.

Wherein is this pointed comment:

Whilst they have their chequebook open, they could also remove GST from Rates, thus returning $750-800m back to ratepayers.

[flyernzl]

Wherein is this pointed comment:

Originally Posted by Cr Raf Manji
Whilst they have their chequebook open, they could also remove GST from Rates, thus returning $750-800m back to ratepayers.



If that did happen, rates would immediately pop up by 12.5%

[Davo36]

Block the public? How's about blocking the councils?

Perry, this bit was in the article:

However, under the new powers resource consent decisions for large projects would not go to council and public input would not happen. Instead, a panel of experts chaired by an Environment Court judge would determine whether a project could be given the green light, he said.

So this shows where the problems lie right? With f**king councils.

So, firstly the government's new housing authority, urban development authority, or whatever it is, doesn't have to go through the RMA and/or council approval.

And now this.

Again, the point is, the RMA and councils are the problem with getting anything done in this country.

[Perry]

Behind the measures, I think there's a bit of side-stepping the NIMBY crowd, too.

As much as the empire-building councils, I mean.

And it does refer to 'large' projects.

And there's sure to be more to it, as well.