Planning permission for a new garage: $830!

[The Stranger:Me]

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder. Builders are not stupid people and always knew full well that they were throwing a construction together with a very limited life span.

The Building Industry Authority approved the building systems based on Building Research Association of New Zealand testing and recommendations. Both of these were govt quangos. The BIA was rapidly disbanded as the problem unfolded so as to avoid liability on the govt - obviously this was all the builders fault.

The BIA reacted to pressure from greenies in approving the use of untreated timber - again, clearly the builders fault.

The builder builds to the designs of the architect, who in turn designs in accordance with BIA and BRANZ standards - again, clearly the builders fault.

Should a council knock back a construction system, the developer may appeal the decision and will back this up using the BIA and BRANZ approvals. The council often has no choice but to accept these - I guess this is no doubt the builders fault also.

The builder is contracted to construct a dwelling in accordance with such plans and specifications and prices accordingly. If they price above the minimum requirement they don't get the job as everyone knows lowest price=quality. Moreover, case law dictates that the lowest complying price must get a tender, so even if a builder allows super duper timber and the lower price allows as per spec for untreated timber the contract MUST go to the lower price. The statement in many tenders that "lowest or any tender may not be accepted" does not permit one to accept a higher tender - only to cancel the project. - you guessed it, builder's fault

It is niave to believe that a group housing builder could have offered a product at a better price based on better materials that people could not even see. They would have had no customers and been out of business due to the excessive cost. - Well, builder's fault again I guess, nothing to do with dumb arse clients wanting the cheapest they could get.

Poor workmanship is no doubt a contributor in many cases however the majority of the problem rightly lies with those that both tested and approved the systems thereby placing them into service often against the wishes or advice of others.

[Forest]

My view is that its not really the builders to blame, more the pressure groups who pressured the Govt into changing what was acceptable in terms of material and building practice, which coupled with a chronic underinvestment in skills training over the preceding 20 years (starting in the 1980'2 when most of our building industry moved to Australia) resulting in a chronically underskilled workforce, so that instead of builders you have component assemblers, and a culture of thats not my problem, then a huge upswing in demand. Then when it all turns to shit the gummint disestablishes the relevant authority, and tries valiantly to lock the stable door when the horse is in the next county, and blames the builders.....

The builders were definitely a part of the problem. A lot of the new cladding materials they were using required careful and skilled installation.

Having said that, the manufacturers should have placed more emphasis on training and certifying the installers. So I certainly don't want to lay all the blame on the builders.

[Indiana_Jones]

The English lessons working out for you then Indy

Getting there srowry ^_^

-Indy

[The Stranger:Me]

The builders were definitely a part of the problem. A lot of the new cladding materials they were using required careful and skilled installation.

You will also note that with a lot of the "new" cladding systems, particularly the monolithic type claddings, the installation instructions changed at such a pace that it was nigh on impossible to keep up. We certainly had to obtain new instructions each time they were used, and keep the new instructions as each time a claim was made the manufacturer would claim it hadn't been fixed in accordance with the instructions. But it had, just not in accordance with the latest instruction.
You had to be able to produce the old ones or the blame simply fell on you.

Only reason I could see for changing their instructions so frequently is because they found a problem with the one's before - this suggested to me that those issuing the instructions fucked up - big time. But there may be another explanation I guess.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it, the concrete pad in one section I would never put a bike on as it is so thin I broke through it with a broom handle, and it all has council compliance. Oh I wonder how much the demolition permit will be.

dig or cut a wee trench across the front of the garage and put a slot drain across it. our drive slopes down to the gargre and thats what they did there. works like a charm.

[JMemonic]

dig or cut a wee trench across the front of the garage and put a slot drain across it. our drive slopes down to the gargre and thats what they did there. works like a charm.

That maybe a plan for the future but I really want a bigger garage

[Swoop]

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder.

Tui advert, huh?
It had absolutely nothing to do with the architect who specified what materials to use...

True....not sure how true it is that if the Builder's had used better timber that the Council would not have approved...

He would have been bollocked for deviating from the plans and specs... that is of course IF the inspector picked up on the fact.

The old saying is "those that CAN, do. Those who can't, inspect...

The builders were definitely a part of the problem. A lot of the new cladding materials they were using required careful and skilled installation.

Having said that, the manufacturers should have placed more emphasis on training and certifying the installers. So I certainly don't want to lay all the blame on the builders.

The simple fact that monolithic cladding systems are the typical kiwi way of doing a job on the cheap. If you want a plastered brick/stone effect, use bricks or stones and plaster over those. If you want lightweight timber framing with shit on the outside, use that and have your wallet ready for the future issues that will arise.
James Hardie has a fuck of a lot to answer for with their crap.
Just wait until the Linea Weatherboard ussues start raising their head!

[SPman]

Agree with Henry D, BMW and Noel. 'tis not the builders fault alone - it spans the entire spectrum from the government, down, but everyone has done a legal runner.
The leaky building scandal has also been widespread in areas in Canada.

Building Inspectors (if they're doing their job properly) are only policing the Building Code and Standards. They aren't Clerks of Works, although (in Aucklands case ) some of us used to put in cryptic notes about poor standards of building in inspection files (we weren't meant to) and I have informed owners of the abysmal standard of work on a couple of jobs (also not meant to), even though it (just)complied.

In Auckland, the building compliance section is the only dept. that pays its way. And you're right, the costs and fees are, I reckon, extortionate, especially on small jobs. Strange that Rodney council didn't have to front up with at least 10% of the claim - that's the reckoned amount the councils are generally held to be liable for - Auckland city, anyway.

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it

Another slack job by the builder that should have been picked up by the inspector, at least! I failed 5 houses for that very fault on final inspections - one of them a $3mil dollar house that would have had water running through the garage and entrance in any decent downpour.

He would have been bollocked for deviating from the plans and specs... that is of course IF the inspector picked up on the fact.

Not so - depends on the inspector. I've come across many builders who have upspecced the framing, and it is perfectly acceptable. It seemed to be the Asian builders and developers who were quite prepared to spend a bit more to well exceed the basic standards....

old saying is "those that CAN, do. Those who can't, inspect...

Yeah, whatever. There are some right shockers amongst the inspectors, but no more so than any other part of the building industry..

[Ixion]

..
Just wait until the Linea Weatherboard ussues start raising their head!

Wotz Linea Weatherboard? I never heard of weatherboard houses having problems ? (Mainly well before the leaky house era of course).

The leaky house debacle is down to get rich quick property speculators ignoring two fundamental rules : You need to have ventilation . Bugger this silly modern notion of closing everything up tighter than a nun's twat. Open the windows. Let some ruddy fresh air in. It'll be better for you and better for the building . And let some air into the walls as well. Older houses had open cavities in the walls and ventilation grilles and such like. So there was air flow through the walls. And drainage to allow water that did get in to get out again.

And second, whatever crooked cunt signed off on using untreated pinus radiata for structural framing needs to flayed alive in front of a slow fire.

Houses will *always* leak. If not when first built then certainly after a year or so of twisting and moving and flexing. Ventilation and drainage allows the water to escape, and the timber to dry out. And treatment (tanalised is obviously better, but boric's good enough) will stop any rot starting while the drying out is happeneing.

Simple as that. And every handyman and chippy in the land knew that perfectly well. Just the bloody bureacrats and shysters wouldn't listen.

I reckon that morally CHH and Fletchers should cop the lot.

And for Gawd's sake, go and open those bloody windows. Yes, right now.

[Molly]

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it, the concrete pad in one section I would never put a bike on as it is so thin I broke through it with a broom handle, and it all has council compliance. Oh I wonder how much the demolition permit will be.

My new garage is going further back on the section. Because the combined lenght of my two garages would be over some or other length there was a question over the distance the new one would have to be from the boundary. To get around that I had to sign to agree that the old one would be removed but not before they asked that the old one be removed first (meaning all my f'kin' tools / bikes / bike lift etc. would be sat in the garden...). What a load of crap. Didn't ask about a demolition permit. I'll just pull the fucker down. Oh, on top of that they want the garage gutter water pumped up to the street (we're on a hill) even though there's 650 squares of garden right behind it I could've drained into (another $1,200 to do that).

F'kin' 'rules'. Gives you the shits.

[JMemonic]

F'kin' 'rules'. Gives you the shits.

Yeah its going to be a problem for the garage I want them.

[Swoop]

Wotz Linea Weatherboard? I never heard of weatherboard houses having problems ?

Another shoddy product from jimmy hardly.
The product is delaminating and the failure rate is shocking.

Yeah, whatever. There are some right shockers amongst the inspectors, but no more so than any other part of the building industry..

I have been surprised by the lack of skills that it takes to become a building inspector. One example is an ex jib-stopper who works for the Auckland council as an "inspector".

[doc]

You really do have to worry about councils though. Yesterday I had to talk to an architect about excavating below a footing , he mentioned that they just had a job delayed until the council was informed how some underfloor building paper was fixed to the floor joists. He phoned them to explain that staples are what they specificy.

These are the people who will approve the design to excavate under a footing, wtf

[Espresso]

Molly - one builder suggested to me, and it would have saved about $20,000 on the cost of my house rebuild, and may well help you (but don't quote me )...do what you will and tell no-one. It's kind of sad that I would even suggest this, however here in Rodney even with a Council signed-off house, it means absolutely nothing, worse than that, it's cost me half a million dollars. Authority and no responsibility, still. If I had bulldozed my house, as I did, and rebuilt with reliable builders I would have saved at least 8 months of waiting for Councils various approvals, over $5k in Council consents and required inspection fees, and absolute b.s. 'new' safer regulations (e.g. unable to use galvanised exterior bolts on a deck because my house now deemed as high salt spray area - but original bolts had zero rust on them after 14 years outside...the new an unbelievably expensive stainless steel bolts etc already have 'tea stains' i.e. rust...oh and $3000 worth of extra stainlees steel strapping ).
Oh and even key original documents have been 'lost' by the Council....yeah right, so the ONLY reason I bothered with so called sign-off is if I go to sell the house and the buyers insist on sign off (I believe many in Rodney who are putting up sheds etc aren't now bothering with consents because of the Council sham).

The underlying thing is that not one single person, not one single person is responsible for doing anything wrong, nothing at all. Yet my home lies dead and buried. Doesn't that just typify NZ's entire b.s. PC culture. Spineless.

I decided to treat this (bit of life) like a card game, I got dealt a bad hand -and it's up to me what to do with it. Either gamble $100,000 minimum taking the Councils insurance company to court...oops no I can't because the Government overode existing law to protect Councils by limiting claims to just 10 years...spend years being bitter, stressed and still live in an extremely unhealthy house (couldn't live down stairs for the past 5 years the mould was so bad) or get positive, go hard and build a great new life, look at it as a challenge and rise to it. Hey after all it's just a house, I still have a fantastic son and my health.

Sorry I don't mean to hijack your thread, just wanted to heads up as there are probably several options open to you to get what you actually want without getting screwed, best of luck with your challenges there.

[The Stranger:Me]

The leaky house debacle is down to get rich quick property speculators ignoring two fundamental rules

And second, whatever crooked cunt signed off on using untreated pinus radiata for structural framing needs to flayed alive in front of a slow fire.

Houses will *always* leak. If not when first built then certainly after a year or so of twisting and moving and flexing. Ventilation and drainage allows the water to escape, and the timber to dry out. And treatment (tanalised is obviously better, but boric's good enough) will stop any rot starting while the drying out is happeneing.

Absolutely.
For a good picture of the causes all one needs to do is ask why we never had a problem (or very few) for the previous 200yrs and lets face it, many during that period were build by home handymen.

Why would you leave James Hardy out of your list?
It occurs to me that most all leaky home are clad in a hardies product of one kind or another.