Planning permission for a new garage: $830!

[Molly]

Had a beer so I'm moaning about everythin'.

Had to pay $830 this week for permission to put up a Versatile 7x6 garage.

Robbin' c***s.

[Indiana_Jones]

.........Cunts you mean?

-Indy

[Espresso]

..don't feel too bad, at least you're not in the Rodney Criminal District Council area. Just about to spend the last of $400,000.00 to replace my entire house (the one I already have a monster mortgage on which is now literally buried), not a thing saved.Leaky. Signed off by the Council 14 years ago as a perfectly fit and built house.

Compensation: $0.00
Liability by anyone, Council, builders, James Hardie products: zero

...and get this....I had to pay the $2600 to resubmit the virtual exact same house plans to the Council for (re)building approval.

I can find no words to describe the 'people' at Council, same as NZ Law.

Still, I have a new bike coming to keep me sane

[YellowDog]

..don't feel too bad, at least you're not in the Rodney Criminal District Council area. Just about to spend the last of $400,000.00 to replace my entire house (the one I already have a monster mortgage on which is now literally buried), not a thing saved.Leaky. Signed off by the Council 14 years ago as a perfectly fit and built house.

Compensation: $0.00
Liability by anyone, Council, builders, James Hardie products: zero

...and get this....I had to pay the $2600 to resubmit the virtual exact same house plans to the Council for (re)building approval.

I can find no words to describe the 'people' at Council, same as NZ Law.

Still, I have a new bike coming to keep me sane

Good to hear you are not one of the ones who decided to commit suiside.

The leaky thing was such a scam and there are thousands of people living in such houses who will find out in the future.

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.

BTW: This scam happened in North America 30 years ago. No one heard of it here so NZ was an easy target.

MOLLY: That sounds a bit excessive for such a small amount of work. Please look at this plan and confirm it fits within your regulatory guidlines and the stamp it as approved or tell me what I need to do to gain approval.

$830 = Get Real

[Grahameeboy]

Good to hear you are not one of the ones who decided to commit suiside.

The leaky thing was such a scam and there are thousands of people living in such houses who will find out in the future.

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.

BTW: This scam happened in North America 30 years ago. No one heard of it here so NZ was an easy target.

MOLLY: That sounds a bit excessive for such a small amount of work. Please look at this plan and confirm it fits within your regulatory guidlines and the stamp it as approved or tell me what I need to do to gain approval.

$830 = Get Real

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

It is wrong....we pay rates so that the Council can run their area...so wages being one of them and then they expect us to pay for permits...you only pay $40 to park in a council mobility park for 5 years....in Devonport they spent $400,000 putting new sand in Torpedeo Bay....it is not used as a beach, it is 5 mins walk from Cheltenham Beach with views of Rangi...not the docks....they want to spend $5million tarting up the Wharf area...

Then because the QV goes up you get stung for extra rates...

I often think that Councils are more dodgy than the Govt....

[Grahameeboy]

.........Cunts you mean?

-Indy

The English lessons working out for you then Indy

[cowpoos]

..don't feel too bad, at least you're not in the Rodney Criminal District Council area. Just about to spend the last of $400,000.00 to replace my entire house (the one I already have a monster mortgage on which is now literally buried), not a thing saved.Leaky. Signed off by the Council 14 years ago as a perfectly fit and built house.

Compensation: $0.00
Liability by anyone, Council, builders, James Hardie products: zero

...and get this....I had to pay the $2600 to resubmit the virtual exact same house plans to the Council for (re)building approval.

I can find no words to describe the 'people' at Council, same as NZ Law.

Still, I have a new bike coming to keep me sane

I feel for you and other leaky house sufferers!!! would be a total mind fuck!!
and I wouldn't stop fighting it..and someone with a heap of money and flash lawyers will at some stage set a precident in the courts..they you can screw shit loads out of product suppliers and Co...

[cowpoos]

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.

How the heck is it all the builders fault??? I think you have a limited grasp of the situation...seriously...not being a smart arse right now

[YellowDog]

How the heck is it all the builders fault??? I think you have a limited grasp of the situation...seriously...not being a smart arse right now

OK - The reason I blame the builders (to a degree) and I don't blame the timber (as much) is because the timber in question may well have been fine if it had not been put into a situation where any timber would rot after a short period of time.

As I said, builders are not stupid people and the knew the buildings were farked right from the start.

BUT yes I do put most blame with the authorities to have allowed a worldwide know 'failed building practice' to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people. And then to turn their backs on them. They approved the design and signed it off. They should accept some responsibility. The builder will get away with building as cheaply as possible within the given guidlines. Why shouldn't they? (complete U-turn then)

[BMWST?]

OK - The reason I blame the builders (to a degree) and I don't blame the timber (as much) is because the timber in question may well have been fine if it had not been put into a situation where any timber would rot after a short period of time.

As I said, builders are not stupid people and the knew the buildings were farked right from the start.

BUT yes I do put most blame with the authorities to have allowed a worldwide know 'failed building practice' to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people. And then to turn their backs on them. They approved the design and signed it off. They should accept some responsibility. The builder will get away with building as cheaply as possible within the given guidlines. Why shouldn't they? (complete U-turn then)

leaky buildings are the responsibility of the design,(ie flat rooves WILL leak),poor building practice(no flashings on windows),unsuitable materials(who really thinks two 7mm sheets can be butt jointed with sealant and NOT leak),and then using unsuitable materials in conjuntion with the above errors.
In the face of all that how does a council(who arent supposed to be site supervisors for the quality of the building) be responsible for the QUALITY of a building.That role is supposed to be taken by architects and or proper supervisors.(the actual proffesional role escapes me but it is a role that has largely disapreared)All that went out the window with home owners managing their own projects with labour only builders.

[HenryDorsetCase]

YellowDog I feel for you, I really do. Ive had a couple of horror stories like that come my way. One of my clients (who incidentally is the best builder I have ever seen) now works full time on "leaky home" rectification. He sends me photos of particularly appalling ones because I am interested in it. He also spends a lot of time at the WHRS and acting as expert for claimants.

The biggest problem with the leaky home crisis is that there are waaaay too many lawyers involved, and not enough people out swinging hammers getting stuff fixed.

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.....

Sorry, hobby horse. And probably not too useful for you in your current state of mind. Enjoy the new bike.

And I presume that instead of investing $100k in legal fees to fight and maybe not win, or win and have no ability to collect your winnings, you've decided to use that money fixing the actual problem? If so, that might be the best thing long term.

[Howie]

leaky buildings are the responsibility of the design,(ie flat rooves WILL leak),poor building practice(no flashings on windows),unsuitable materials(who really thinks two 7mm sheets can be butt jointed with sealant and NOT leak),and then using unsuitable materials in conjuntion with the above errors.
In the face of all that how does a council(who arent supposed to be site supervisors for the quality of the building) be responsible for the QUALITY of a building.

A bit off the topic of excessive fees charged by council's:

But for design faults who sets the Building codes that the building should meet? Are they government set, or council set, or a mixture of both. If the original design meet the code at the time then isn't the code at fault? and responsibility lies with the authority that made the code. As for compliance to the code isn't that the Job of the council's employee commonly referred to as the Building inspector? Or are you saying it is the fault of the person who paid for the house to be built at the time.

As to Molly's OP shit thats a lot for a resource consent for a garage, mind you I haven't applied for one to build anything in recent years.

[ynot slow]

So many at fault with leaky homes,council building consent officers not monitering the build,dodgy as developers speccing building materials,of which the builders have no say in,but decide to use them instead of saying no way.

Saw the balcony on one appartment/home which was held on by 4x2 butted onto side of house,no bracing,how the hell did a competant builder manage to erect it,let alone council(again) certify it.

[oldguy]

F**k make's my jayline fire place I brought a year ago, pal in comparison, thats going to cost me $500.
Why its still in the box in the middle of my lounge, I wounder if I should applie for the permit before we go super city or wait?

[JMemonic]

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.