If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
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%
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.
Comment