Property costs in NZ - the heart of evil

[Brian d marge]

Or as a Verification method (i.e VM1 or VM4 for typical engineering calcs) ... which the BCA's (councils) may not refuse to accept, unless they find fault in the calculations and then if the calculation is corrected they must accept it and can be compelled to relatively easily through determination by the DBH (now MoBIE.. [snigger] goes well with their FAP scheme).

They can also be compelled to accept non verified Alternative solutions in the absence of compliance with the Acceptable solutions of the building code (providing you know how to describe in reasonable detail the basis on which you believe your alternative solution will satisfy the requirements of the building code, and the proposal is actually workable).

The BCA must give specific reasons (detailing the nitty gritty of what they take issue with) as to why they wont accept your proposal and following that, (providing you can subsequently demonstrate that your proposal is able to satisfy the requirements in the identified areas) they then must accept or decline.

Once you are declined you can go to determination (via the DBH, which typically involves genuine expert investigation/assessment and reporting by a member of the DBH panel of technical experts ) and providing you are right (not just being a dumbass) they will be directed to accept the proposal (though this is often only after additional identified shortcomings in technical details of the proposal are also addressed).

It's just a matter of infinite patience and per$everance

Uzi 9mm

Beats regulations every time

Stephen

On a serious side , there are a few in NZ that want to build an earth ship, and some maybe engineers ,

[unstuck]

Heres a bargain, just needs some TLC(In the form of a 20 ton digger). http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/re...-541487859.htm

[flyingcrocodile46]

Heres a bargain, just needs some TLC(In the form of a 20 ton digger). http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/re...-541487859.htm

If you buried it under a pile of dirt, you could call it a earth ship

[unstuck]

If you buried it under a pile of dirt, you could call it a earth ship

You could chuck it across the road into the harbour, and then it would be a submarine. Just think of all the poor borer you would drown though.

[BoristheBiter]

Or as a Verification method
It's just a matter of infinite patience and per$everance

The big one that I can't work out is why so many houses don't have sign off.

Went and looked at one the other day. 3 bed house with a granny flat on the section. Neither has sign off and they were built in 1994.

Councils have far to much to answer for and when they fuck up the rate payer foots the bill.
It should be taken out of their hands, they look after zoning as in their district plan but a building council should look after the structure.

[flyingcrocodile46]

The big one that I can't work out is why so many houses don't have sign off.

Went and looked at one the other day. 3 bed house with a granny flat on the section. Neither has sign off and they were built in 1994.

To get the CCC the applicant has to have passed final inspection AND filled in the appropriate application form (for the CCC). Prior to circa 2002 most applicants didn't even know what a CCC was and simply didn't apply for it. (it is supposed to be applied for within 6 months of the last inspection but is not mandatory to do so except for developers consents). A pretty big percentage of applicants didn't even have their final inspections as they saw it is unnecessary red tape and really only cared about whether the house was ready for them to live in.

Following 2002 all BCA's became aware of the leaking building fiasco (and subsequent litigation liabilities) and subsequently (and logically) were unable to be satisfied that the requirements of the building code could be satisfied when untreated timber (amongst other issues) was used in the project. They would have been seen to have been negligent (including in their responsibilities to the rate payers) to run around issuing retrospective CCC's for risky builds. (They have less liability for leakers that they didn't fully inspect and/or issue CCC's for).

People have tried booking inspections and requested CCC's several years after they have taken possession of their houses but must undergo full re-inspections and pass them. If the consent was issued before 2005 the council must be satisfied that the completed build will satisfy the requirements on the NZBC and as most houses prior to this time were built of untreated timber and contained multiple additional defects (which had previously mostly been ignored) the inspections invariably fail and notices to fix are then issued. If you don't comply with a Notice To Fix (which could cost hundreds of thousands) you will be in breach of the law. Unless you built it as a developer and intend to sell it, a lack of a CCC is not against the law. The majority of home owners are better off just to eat the lack of CCC and accept the loss resulting from a lack of buyer confidence as it will likely be cheaper than complying with a NTF.

The Act was changed in 2004 and subsequent applications (for the most part) have to be assessed for compliance with the approved consent documents (rather than the building code itself). These houses are more likely to be able to be economically fixed so as to pass the re-inspection but typically will have a watered down CCC issued (at best) due to the expiration of time and the NZBC durability time frames for various components. I.e paint must last 5 years, cladding 15 years, framing 50 years from the date the CCC is issued. The BCA can't reasonably expect paint and cladding systems that are already several years old to last as long as if they were brand new (the NZBC requires this and BCA''s would then be liable to pay for repainting/re-cladding when they do not last the distance).

Older consent paper work requirements are often incomplete and the people involved are either unknown or no longer contactable so the documentation requirements are often not satisfied and can't be.

An alternative to a CCC (for consents issued after 2005) is to make an application for a COW (certificate of works.. a certificate that attaches very little liability to the issuer). They are a lot easier to get and although they mean little as far as a form of surety, they do meet the Acts requirements in terms of tidying up incomplete documentation.

For consents between 92 and 2005 the BCA may accept a Safe and Sanitary report from an applicants consultant and then issue it as if they themselves carried it out (as they are the only party under the Act that can produce a safe and sanitary report) and it has a similar outcome/effect to that of a COA issued for post 2004 consents. Of course an educated buyer and lawyer (and there ain't many of them) will recognise that a COA or S&SR is worthless so it won't add any value to a house that is perceived to be at risk of being a leaker.

If the buyer and lawyer were educated they might also realise that any house built before 98 would have had to have been built with treated framing (untreated framing for the most part was only used between 98 and 2004 except for brick houses which didn't change till last year) so have a reduced risk of the same extent of damage (that is to say less rotten framing).

Additionally if a house built betweeen 92 and 98 turned out to be letting water in (recently) and the framing did decay, a CCC wouldn't be of any help whatsoever as the cladding could be said to already have satisfied it's durability requirement for a 15 year life and arguably should have been replaced. Most people don't realise this. Also houses built before 92 simply can not have a CCC as the Act (which created CCC's) didn't come into effect untill 1992. A good but unethical bluff would be to convince an owner of a pre 92 build that his house is worth less because it doesn't have a CCC (given the public's lack of knowledge about these matters that shouldn't be too difficult) However that would be a cunt act so I do not advocate such things.

Hope this helps you understand what you are looking at.

[Brian d marge]

Heres a bargain, just needs some TLC(In the form of a 20 ton digger). http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/re...-541487859.htm

Theres a starter home right there,, near the beach though , might limit your vege garden,,,
But you wouldn't have to work much to live ,,,,
Stephen

[unstuck]

Theres a starter home right there,, near the beach though , might limit your vege garden,,,
But you wouldn't have to work much to live ,,,,
Stephen

Maybe the garage could be lived in. Great for the burt munroe challenge though. Make a killing of all you grubby bikers.

[Brian d marge]

Maybe the garage could be lived in. Great for the burt munroe challenge though. Make a killing of all you grubby bikers.

there must be some kind of work in invergiggle
its about 70 a week,,

if I stopped drinking.........

stephen

[unstuck]

there must be some kind of work in invergiggle
its about 70 a week,,

if I stopped drinking.........

stephen

I belive there is work anywhere if you really want it, TIWAI aluminium smelter is just across the harbour too.

[Ocean1]

If you buried it under a pile of dirt, you could call it a earth ship

Tell you what, it's been standing for longer than almost all of the dwellings built under any form of subsequent regulatory control are likely to, and it'll probably outlast most of them. So, the purpose of the regulations is?

Any guesses what the framing is likely to be?

[Ocean1]

there must be some kind of work in invergiggle
its about 70 a week,,

if I stopped drinking.........

stephen

Friend owns a large colonial era house on the hillside just a block or two from there. He's got semi-permanent boarders, does a bit of freelance programing, grows most of what he needs. Not too bad a lifestyle at all.

[unstuck]

Any guesses what the framing is likely to be?

My guess would be red pine, or maybe celery pine. Got a mate with a wee hunk of turf not far from there too, he loves it. There is a 7 acre block there he wants me to buy.Nah, not a bluff fan.

[Ocean1]

My guess would be red pine, or maybe celery pine. Got a mate with a wee hunk of turf not far from there too, he loves it. There is a 7 acre block there he wants me to buy.Nah, not a bluff fan.

The reason for the comment was the friend's place, the original studs are all 4x4, at 18" centres, in what looks very much like Totara. Must be 12ft stud, the scotias are hand carved Rimu a foot deep and the floors are all 1 1/4" Matai. No idea what the cladding is but it's all original and dead straight.

I like Bluff, but I remember it from 50 years ago, it's had some hard times since then, the freezing works closing down must have come particularly hard. And there's a chance the smelter may go...

[unstuck]

The reason for the comment was the friend's place, the original studs are all 4x4, at 18" centres, in what looks very much like Totara. Must be 12ft stud, the scotias are hand carved Rimu a foot deep and the floors are all 1 1/4" Matai. No idea what the cladding is but it's all original and dead straight.

I like Bluff, but I remember it from 50 years ago, it's had some hard times since then, the freezing works closing down must have come particularly hard. And there's a chance the smelter may go...

Wouldnt be surprised at all if it was totara, a lot of it came from the hokanuis and the catlins, but I think most of the catlins stuff went to dunners.