Tweet
Hi all, just want to share my experience on our first subdivision project in west Auckland. Any comments welcome. The site is our current family home. We intent to build a bigger house on the new lot to accommodate our growing family and make some capital gain along the way. But at the moment, I am doubting seriously if I should keep pouring money down this drain. It might be easier just use the money to buy a bigger house. And keep this as a rental.
Firstly, I would have to admit this is not a straight forward subdivision. The section area is 800+m2, under current rules can be subdivided at 350m2 per section. The original house is positioned at the front of the section, so no demolition required. However, there is a stream running through the back of the site. Thus, it is subject to 7m riparian margin, 100 years flood plain, esplanade reserve/strip if the stream is over 3m wide, historical horticultural use (meaning potential soil contamination).
In Aug/Sep 2015, we started engaging surveyor, engineer and architect to prepare necessary plans and reports. Surveyor Topo $2300, Engineer flood assessment $2700, architect concept drawings $2700. In order to save some money, I decided to project manage myself and used individual specialist, as small firms have better quotes. The biggest mistake ever! I would strongly recommend anyone who is doing a subdivision to go to a one stop shop consultancy company, who can liaise everything for you.
In Dec 2015, when the preliminary plans and reports are ready, we had a pre-application meeting with the Council, where I had my first taste of council bureaucracy. They are so difficult to deal with, yet you have to live with it. So, these were exactly what happened,
- Days before the scheduled meeting, the meeting coordinator from Council asked if we know how wide is the stream, they were trying to determine if a Park specialist needs to be involved in the meeting to discuss about the esplanade reserve/strip requirement. The average stream width is 2.13m, measured by our surveyor using common practice, bank to bank. So it should not trigger the esplanade rules. Yet, the park rep come back questioning the methodology used by the surveyor, and send us a 2010 conference paper written by BECA, and advised we need to conduct engineer hydraulic modelling to calculate the stream width. Please note, this is just an academic conference paper, not Council policy. I did some research and check if we must follow this BECA paper. But there is limited information available. And my surveyor advised it is probably easier to just follow what the council ask you to do. Thus, I requested the park rep to attend the pre-app meeting for some clarification and directions.
- On the day of meeting, the park specialist did not show up as we cannot confirm if the stream is over 3m. How helpful! A development engineer, a planner and a planning team leader attended the meeting. During the meeting, they told me straight away they did not support the proposal, due to
- Post-meeting, it took almost three months for the planning team to complete the meeting minutes. After many follow up calls and emails, I finally received it in Mar 2016. I thought about making a complain during the wait, however, I don’t want to jeopardise my application later on. Really frustrating.
- In Feb/Mar 2016, the Council Park specialist came to do a site meeting with us. She insisted we need to do a hydraulic modelling to determine the stream is over 3m at annual fullest flow. My surveyor quoted $2000 to re-survey the stream to provide data for engineer’s modelling. The engineer’s quote comes back to be $5500. I do not want to spend $8k just to know how wide the stream is. So I’ve asked her if we can just agree this stream is over 3m wide. And let’s get cracking on esplanade reduction application to 7m, same as the riparian margin. Guess what? She rejected and said her team will not comment until they are certain if the stream is qualifying. The funny thing is, our neighbour across the stream, they did their subdivision a few years earlier. No questions were ever asked about the stream width. Maybe it’s just bad luck that this lady happens to be the park specialist around this time.
It has been 8 months since we first started this subdivision project. We have spent $13k so far. I felt like I am still at square one. I’ve obtained a quote from a consultancy firm to do all the planning and engineering work for me from now on. They quoted $20k, excluding the stream bit, as there is too much uncertainty. So that will be invoiced on hourly basis. They also cannot guarantee if the subdivision will be successful, as building over flood plain in Waitakere is arguable.
If you are in my shoes, would you carry on with this subdivision? Or just put it on hold now until Unitary plan is operative. However, I heard that unitary plan is going to be even stricter on buildings over flood plain.
Sorry about the lengthy writing. My way of stress relief.
Firstly, I would have to admit this is not a straight forward subdivision. The section area is 800+m2, under current rules can be subdivided at 350m2 per section. The original house is positioned at the front of the section, so no demolition required. However, there is a stream running through the back of the site. Thus, it is subject to 7m riparian margin, 100 years flood plain, esplanade reserve/strip if the stream is over 3m wide, historical horticultural use (meaning potential soil contamination).
In Aug/Sep 2015, we started engaging surveyor, engineer and architect to prepare necessary plans and reports. Surveyor Topo $2300, Engineer flood assessment $2700, architect concept drawings $2700. In order to save some money, I decided to project manage myself and used individual specialist, as small firms have better quotes. The biggest mistake ever! I would strongly recommend anyone who is doing a subdivision to go to a one stop shop consultancy company, who can liaise everything for you.
In Dec 2015, when the preliminary plans and reports are ready, we had a pre-application meeting with the Council, where I had my first taste of council bureaucracy. They are so difficult to deal with, yet you have to live with it. So, these were exactly what happened,
- Days before the scheduled meeting, the meeting coordinator from Council asked if we know how wide is the stream, they were trying to determine if a Park specialist needs to be involved in the meeting to discuss about the esplanade reserve/strip requirement. The average stream width is 2.13m, measured by our surveyor using common practice, bank to bank. So it should not trigger the esplanade rules. Yet, the park rep come back questioning the methodology used by the surveyor, and send us a 2010 conference paper written by BECA, and advised we need to conduct engineer hydraulic modelling to calculate the stream width. Please note, this is just an academic conference paper, not Council policy. I did some research and check if we must follow this BECA paper. But there is limited information available. And my surveyor advised it is probably easier to just follow what the council ask you to do. Thus, I requested the park rep to attend the pre-app meeting for some clarification and directions.
- On the day of meeting, the park specialist did not show up as we cannot confirm if the stream is over 3m. How helpful! A development engineer, a planner and a planning team leader attended the meeting. During the meeting, they told me straight away they did not support the proposal, due to
1) Over half of the house is within 100 year flood plain. The engineer advised in central, south and Northshore, building over flood plain is acceptable, as long as your house meets the minimum floor level criteria, and construct with open flow pile foundation. However, it will be a war to fight if you are dealing with Waitakere Council. Does anyone have the same experience?
2) The stormwater report did not account for climate change factor. Thus, new report required to confirm minimum floor level. Our report was prepared in Sep. I was advised, in Nov 2015, Council introduce new rules requiring all flood assessment report to include climate change into consideration. How lucky. So, getting the flood report updated cost around $1000.
3) Still need to confirm if the stream is over 3m wide. If yes, upto 20m esplanade reserve may be taken from the new lot. - anything over 7m, I won't be subdividing, as there won't be enough land remaining. They will get nothing.
2) The stormwater report did not account for climate change factor. Thus, new report required to confirm minimum floor level. Our report was prepared in Sep. I was advised, in Nov 2015, Council introduce new rules requiring all flood assessment report to include climate change into consideration. How lucky. So, getting the flood report updated cost around $1000.
3) Still need to confirm if the stream is over 3m wide. If yes, upto 20m esplanade reserve may be taken from the new lot. - anything over 7m, I won't be subdividing, as there won't be enough land remaining. They will get nothing.
- Post-meeting, it took almost three months for the planning team to complete the meeting minutes. After many follow up calls and emails, I finally received it in Mar 2016. I thought about making a complain during the wait, however, I don’t want to jeopardise my application later on. Really frustrating.
- In Feb/Mar 2016, the Council Park specialist came to do a site meeting with us. She insisted we need to do a hydraulic modelling to determine the stream is over 3m at annual fullest flow. My surveyor quoted $2000 to re-survey the stream to provide data for engineer’s modelling. The engineer’s quote comes back to be $5500. I do not want to spend $8k just to know how wide the stream is. So I’ve asked her if we can just agree this stream is over 3m wide. And let’s get cracking on esplanade reduction application to 7m, same as the riparian margin. Guess what? She rejected and said her team will not comment until they are certain if the stream is qualifying. The funny thing is, our neighbour across the stream, they did their subdivision a few years earlier. No questions were ever asked about the stream width. Maybe it’s just bad luck that this lady happens to be the park specialist around this time.
It has been 8 months since we first started this subdivision project. We have spent $13k so far. I felt like I am still at square one. I’ve obtained a quote from a consultancy firm to do all the planning and engineering work for me from now on. They quoted $20k, excluding the stream bit, as there is too much uncertainty. So that will be invoiced on hourly basis. They also cannot guarantee if the subdivision will be successful, as building over flood plain in Waitakere is arguable.
If you are in my shoes, would you carry on with this subdivision? Or just put it on hold now until Unitary plan is operative. However, I heard that unitary plan is going to be even stricter on buildings over flood plain.
Sorry about the lengthy writing. My way of stress relief.
Comment