Sign In / Register
Is there a problem?
Tried building a house lately, adding a garage or doing a renovation?
If you are unfamiliar with Auckland Council’s consenting processes, then sometimes “ignorance is bliss”.
Professionals working in this space use the phrase “it’s broken” to describe the journey from application to consent – the costs and delays, as well as the frustrations of dealing with inexperienced planners who have little knowledge of the rural environment are common themes. But few want to go on the record for fear of a backlash professionally.
Over upcoming issues, Mahurangi Matters will run a series of stories on people’s building experiences. We started by approaching Auckland Council for some background data on how many consents it issues annually, average time frames for issuing consents and the range of fees a person might expect to be charged. These were simple questions, but too hard for Council. Instead, we were advised to put in an Official Information Act request. So much for transparency and accountability.
We begin this series with thoughts from Rodney Councillor Greg Sayers who is convinced central government intervention is needed to get Council’s planning department back on track. We also talked to John and Jane Beveridge, who are challenging Council over what they feel are excess consent charges.
If you have a building or consenting experience you would like to share, we would love to hear from you either by email gm@localmatters.co.nz or phone 021 263 4423.
Council challenged over fees charged
Buckleton Beach homeowners John and Jane Beveridge racked up $30,000 in planning and building consent fees trying to get what they believed was a fairly straightforward build through Council.Their section in Bishop Lane was part of a 16-lot subdivision, which John says should have meant there was some institutional knowledge about the site before his application was even submitted.
“We weren’t trying to cut corners, silt up the harbour or build something that was ugly. We are in an Outstanding
Natural Landscape area and believed that what we planned to build was empathetic to the natural environment around us. We thought it would be fairly straightforward,” he says.
“We were also not the first to apply for resource consent. so this should have allowed for a more streamlined response as it was not a one off, bespoke application.”
But the difficulties started when the Beveridges decided to shift the house a short distance from the roadside to a more sheltered and private site on the property.
Council issued a Section 92, which allowed it to stop the clock and ask for more information. This added to costs and delayed the consent.
“The change to the building site was far less obtrusive and visible than that originally proposed in the development plan. A site visit would have quickly established this and presented far fewer questions and time than it did.
“As a result, the process took far longer than it should have.”
John believes the other root cause of the over-charging was the planner’s lack of experience.
“The planner was in training and I don’t think the client should be expected to pay for on-the-job experience. Council conceded this, to some extent, in a letter.”
In June. 2020, John submitted an objection to the fees charged, but heard nothing until recently.
The outstanding amount owed is $6500 and the Beveridges had asked for a reduction of close to $4000, although they still thought the full amount was excessive. In response, Council has offered to reduce the amount by $1100.
Considering the passage of time and further recent efforts by his planner and himself to resolve the matter, he is now seeking a reduction of $5500.
“The house is built and we have moved in, and now we get this underwhelming offer 18 months later to settle the outstanding account, which in my mind was well and truly in the past.”
In Council’s response to the Beveridges, it states, “It is a matter of council policy and general fairness to ratepayers that the reasonable costs of carrying out this work in an efficient manner are met by applicants themselves, rather than ratepayers in general.”
Beveridge says he doesn’t believe Council’s response reflects an “efficient manner” and, as a result, is not a “reasonable cost”.
“The planning department is inefficient and lacks commercial nous. They need to find a way to work smarter and faster. Ratepayers would be better served if Council planners developed a less adversarial and more collegiate relationship with private planners, who they know and trust to do the right thing.”
The matter will go before an independent commissioner on March 7.
