Infringement Notices from WCC

[Beano]

I would have thought neither the directors or anyone in the lessors comany could be reasonably be expected to have known that the offence was to be or was being committed

[Beano]

You can sell it but you are only selling the leasehold (not the freehold) as there are 2 titles

[John the builder]

would appreciate seeing the titles as a matter of interest but I dont think this is the point

Prior to or at the time of application for the associated building consent, details of the design specifications for the control of noise from any fixed plant and equipment ,including any proposed noise mitigation measures (if sny) must be provided to the compliance monitoring officer.

You have failed to comply with requirement in that council's compliance monitoring officer did not receive any notice as required by condition (c)

This does not say "notice" to ongoing compliance it is just ensuring design is complete when building consent issued. Was a condition applied to the building consent? This may notice may be unlawful?

Do what most mugs do and settle for $300 but at least challenge the notice on the first issue and make them reconsider for the second?

Are you the consentholder for the resource consent in question?

[Beano]

would appreciate seeing the titles as a matter of interest but I dont think this is the point



This does not say "notice" to ongoing compliance it is just ensuring design is complete when building consent issued. Was a condition applied to the building consent? This may notice may be unlawful?

Do what most mugs do and settle for $300 but at least challenge the notice on the first issue and make them reconsider for the second?

Are you the consentholder for the resource consent in question?

No I am not the consent holder
The leaseholder is the consent holder
They made the application ...I (freeholder) had no knowledge of the application

[John the builder]

was there an offence?

what was it?

Was there a building consent?

who was the person committing the offence?

[Beano]

was there an offence?

"You are alleged to have committed an infringement offence against the Resource Management Act 1991"

what was it?

Section of resource management at 1991 contravened : non compliance with section 9 (3) being an offence under section 338 (1) (a) of the Resource management act 1991
Nature of infringement : breach of section 9 (3) by exercising land use consent SR 36×××× and failing to comply with consent condition (c) of that consent which states:
Prior to or at the time of application for the associated building consent, details of the design specifications for the control of noise from any fixed plant and equipment ,including any proposed noise mitigation measures (if sny) must be provided to the compliance monitoring officer
You have failed to comply with requirement in that council's compliance monitoring officer did not receive any notice as required by condition (c)

You are alleged to have committed an infringement offence against the Resource Management Act 1991"

Was there a building consent?

"Application for resource consent was granted SR 36XXXXX"

who was the person committing the offence?

They have name us as the person committing the offence

We have obtained a copy of the consent from the council today and the Proprietors name are both the "Fee Simple Owner " and the "Leasehold Owner"
However the City Council has made an error as they have named the previous "Fee Simple Owner" when on the actual day of the approval they were NOT the "Fee Simple Owner".
But can the previous "Fee Simple Owner commit an offence ?
Can the new "Fee Simple Owner " commit an offence if they could not reasonably have foreseen or provided against the action or event and you adequately mitigated or remedied the effects of the action or event after it occurred ...which is from today as i have obtained a copy of the notice ?

[Shalodge]

In simpler language..Its a resource consent (Land use) (for a particular activity that we are not privy to), that allows for a building subject to building consent, and imposes at least one condition that requires design specifications for the control of noise. This may include building design (soundproofing etc) but will also include site specific mitigation measures (acoustic fencing or plantings etc) for the purpose of mitigation or preventing noise effects leaving the site. It is up to the consent holder ( fee simple and/or leasehold interest) to comply. The exact design of mitigation measures is up to the land owner which is why the design is needed BEFORE any building commences.

JTB ..Its not an issue about a building consent..

Can a previous 'fee simple owner' commit and offence? Yes certainly .. If he/she was owner when a condition was required to be fulfilled or performed and it was not.

Can a new fee simple owner commit an offence? Again yes . I you buy a property that is subject to an ongoing or unfulfilled consent condition then you have bought liability for performance of that condition .. It goes with the title/land. Get a LIM it lists these matters.

Can the new fee simple owner be held liable even if he/she didn't know about the requirement to perform or fulfill a consent condition? Obviously yes .. Ignorance is no excuse and the matter is strict liability. Again .. when you buy a property check the LIM to see if there are any ongoing or unfulfilled consent conditions requiring your attention. eg. Resource consent as a discretionary activity for a dwelling may have been granted subject to a condition that on an ongoing basis a specific type of shelter to mitigate noise of visual effects is required. If you don't notice this and rip out the hedge .. guess what ? Yep an infringement notice (or worse) and also an abatement notice which will require reinstatement.

When it comes to the RMA and breaches thereof it is serious!! Do not ignore obligations placed on land titles. The consequences are severe. It is draconian stuff but really it needs to be.

In this situation it seems perfectly clear what was required but it obviously wasn't done and now the parties are pointing fingers at each other.. pretty common and needless.

[John the builder]

JTB ..Its not an issue about a building consent..

yes it is, based on the stated facts............

Prior to or at the time of application for the associated building consent, details of the design specifications for the control of noise from any fixed plant and equipment ,including any proposed noise mitigation measures (if sny) must be provided to the compliance monitoring officer

You have failed to comply with requirement in that council's compliance monitoring officer did not receive any notice as required by condition (c)

The offence was stated as required to provide details at the consent. If a con\sent was applied fro trthen council could have (and should have ) asked for the specs they wanted. If not provided a s37 certificate was available to council?

Beano is this a correct statement of the facts?? was there a building consent a[pplied for?? As opposed to the resource consent that stipulated the condition,

If so it is incredible that they have issued an infringement notice for their own over\sight?

Shalodge
your example protects the \owner so what is the harm if the same owner removes the noise protection? The RMA is about protecting affected nieghbours ?

The council shopuld realise that there are three fingers pointing back in Beanos case?

[Beano]

yes it is, based on the stated facts............



The offence was stated as required to provide details at the consent. If a con\sent was applied fro trthen council could have (and should have ) asked for the specs they wanted. If not provided a s37 certificate was available to council?

Beano is this a correct statement of the facts?? was there a building consent a[pplied for?? As opposed to the resource consent that stipulated the condition,

If so it is incredible that they have issued an infringement notice for their own over\sight?

Shalodge
your example protects the \owner so what is the harm if the same owner removes the noise protection? The RMA is about protecting affected nieghbours ?

The council shopuld realise that there are three fingers pointing back in Beanos case?

I am awaiting the council to come back to me..in the meantime the tenant''s GM and HO in Sydney have assured me they will sort the matter out