Most people's experience of dealing with councils in New Zealand re building consents is unfortunately not very positive.
Could it change? Could it improve? We'd like to think so.
This page will be the public window of our experience with the council throughout this project.

11th December 2010
Pre-lodgement meeting
Posted by Brigitte
It all started well enough. We met for a pre lodgement meeting with a planner then a building inspector in the Whangarei District council. They looked at our project, our pages of plans and were cautiously receptive. I did feel compelled to correct the building inspector about avoiding the word 'issue' in favor of 'solutions'. He replied: "we are trained to look for issues". Look and Create can somtimes be confused Grant replied. We hope it's not indicative of what is to come.

14th December 2010
How many trees for a consent?
Posted by Brigitte
I have been the constant witness of Grant's frustration in the last week. He has been dealing with a pine forest of paper work. We found out reading all the different consents requirements that every piece of information had to be printed or photocopied up to 4 times to be readily available to various people in the council. We're going through our 2nd ream of paper and run out of all cartridges on two printers. Our copies are now turning pale blue. We have papers and folders everywhere covering desks and tables, it is crazy! We have dinners at our desk with the plate on our knees. You would swear we're working in the 80s before personal computers and emails even existed!
WDC's vision is: To be a vibrant, attractive and thriving District by developing sustainable lifestyles based around our unique environment; the envy of New Zealand and recognised world wide.
Humm, right... I hope they mean it but shouldn't sustainable concepts start right from the beginning at the concept stage? Considering we just wasted a forest of paper anda liter of toxic ink when we could have simply had digital files of everything, we're not very impressed... Who's to blame? RMA? WDC? GOVT?

15th December 2010
More papers...
Posted by Brigitte
In the middle of printing and reprinting every sheet we're writing, typing, filling, for this project, I heard Grant saying "why the f* would the building inspector need to see a certificate of title???"
I have no answer for him, I better let him print yet another copy, even if we have to waste a whole tree by the end of it. They will simply not accept the submission if they don't get all their printed copies of everything 2-3-4 times. So let's do it, I hope the frustration will stop after that and we will have a great time with the council. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm an eternal optimist!

16th December 2010
What's land use for?
Posted by Brigitte
Have you ever heard of 'land use consent'? Sounds explicit enough: what is one using one's land for? Humm, it makes sense if you buy into commercial land and you have to apply for a resource consent for approval of the activity you intend to develop on that land. But what if you buy a residential section subdivided and previously approved by the council for residential use with clear covenants and building site location? If you ask this question to anyone with half a brain the answer will be: building a house!
So why on earth do we have to apply and pay for authorisation to build a house on the piece of land we bought because and only because we could build a house on it? I have my suspicions, but I will give the RMA and Council the benefit of the doubt and hang on for now to the belief that it's not only a revenue making scheme... Grants thought on this is that the RMA and local Councils are working independantly as organisations on this ruling.
Tomorrow Grant is going to submit the application, he will probably waste more trees working through the night but hopefully, the consent processing staff will be happy with his hard 12hrs a day work of the last few weeks, all in order to satisfy their expectations. Grant knows a number of architects that have given up their practices through frustration of the ever changing rulings within the ever changing building act and building code. Some have become consultants to the RMA.

17th December 2010
Resource consent application submission
Posted by Grant
It appears that the higher up the "pay chain" in the "Middle Management" section of WDC, the more "self asserting" the staff are. I haven’t reached the top yet but I expect them to be wiser and more balanced in their own skin. The two reception front men I encountered first have been well chosen and very good 'ambassadors' of the WDC mission statement (It’s a goodie, so worth reading).

From there you get a mixed bag of courteous smiles and accepting manners to a stern "you better have everything we require or else..." attitude. I was directed to one of those staff members but fortunately, one of the two front men rescued me from my first unsavoury experience and turned it into one for the RDC staff be commended for.

Maybe , those self asserting guys didn’t read the WDC mission statement, before applying for their job, referring to 'communication and customer satisfaction' and find it acceptable to hide rigidly behind their inflexible determination of compliance to the RMA regulations.

Thanks to the competent and pleasant man I ended up dealing with, our application for resource and building consents is now on the processing side of the desk and I am trusting it will find its way into the hands of well balanced forward thinking and sustainably minded people that will look for what is there instead of what's missing. Find the content and work on the detail.

7th January 2011
PIM REPORT
Posted by Brigitte
When Grant asked my opinion about applying for the non compulsory PIM report (Project Information Memorandum) which they state, it is not compolsory to apply for a PIM but you will not be able to attain a buildung consent withuot one when moving through 'consent processing' and that department will process a LIM and charge you for that processing. So it is actually 'very' compulsory to get a LIM. What a circus . I was not in favor of it. Grant thought it could add value somehow, that it couldn't possibly be something completely unnecessary. So we applied for the PIM at the cost of $291. What did we get for our hard earned money?

A straight copy of a part of our previously bought LIM report complete with generic information that didn't apply to us in the slightest. The employee printing it didn't even take the time to sort out what applied exclusively to our land and sent us 64 pages of information on the entire 25 lots subdivision with all their covenants and restrictions.

If that was not bad enough, inserted in the copy was an additional insidious little paragraph stating:
Unless confidentiality is specifically requested for reason of security, information contained in your application for Building Consent may be disclosed to parties other than the Council. Section 217 Building Act.

We read it twice wondering if it meant what we thought it meant. Just to be clear, Grant called the council for clarification and this is what the WDC employee basically had to say: "the information you're providing can be accessed for a fee by the public unless you have reasons related to security for requesting confidentiality." Which means that after paying for Specific Design and Engineering, a PIM a LIM a Land Use- Resource -and Building Consent, the public can view it and also have to pay to view our personal building information. By that stage, my eyebrows were raised in astonishment. Democracy or Dictatorship.

But wait there's more. Grant asked the employee if it was the only purpose of this paragraph. He assured it was but Grant didn't let it go this easily and asked him why each time he submits a consent, he receives a myriad of letters and pamphlets from various building related products and services. The RDC staff personell had to conceed then that this information was available for purchase to businesses too. $225 per application per year. So far we have recieved 16 individual building related companies soliciting for our consideration. Now there is nothing wrong with advertising for work to grow your business I am all for that but for the Councils to be profiteering without direct sharing the profits with the origonal source that paid for it all then there is an inbalance within this 'partnership to grow our Region.

Now it's getting a bit too much for our liking. This information belongs to us, we worked hard to come up with specific designs which cost us tens of thousands to develop, then paid high fees for council staff to review it and now it's getting sold to public and businesses. Shouldn't we have the choice to disclose our plans? And if we do choose to disclose them, we shouldn't have to pay for it. If anything, we should get paid for it. What would stop anyone from using those design plans to build themselves a replica ' as they have already proved to have gained CONSENTS so no apprehension about ' knock backs'. Shouldn't we have the option to require council to sign a confidentiality agreement over our personal information being sold to the public to view and print off a copy if they request it for less than $90.

20th January 2011
NO SUPENSION LETTER PLEASE
Posted by Grant
When the council is not satisfied by what has been submitted, they suspend the application. I requested that they don't suspend anything but instead contact me directly for a personal meeting to discuss any ISSUES they have. Good on them for doing it. By direct contact via email it saves valuable time, paper, ink, envelopes, postage, transport, human error and the cost to the client to recify. All of this waste is charged to the client which inturn escalates their costs to the point of it becoming too uncertain and expensive to cope with, and the result is what we now have 'a more crippled building industry than is necessary'. These are not my own words but the fears and frustrations of the general public wanting to build new or renovate. Councils, lets get together and make it easier for the money to go round.

25th January 2011
MEETING: conservative or innovative... that's the question
Posted by Brigitte
Three council staff were waiting for us for this meeting: one team leader, one building processing officer and one head of planning department. The first 15 mins were painfully frustrating as they were telling us that our plans didn't comply to the building code but wouldn't tell us on which ground exactly. After 10min of what felt like pulling teeth, the team leader stated our roof does not comply with the building code.
It is INNOVATION which means it is outside what is currently acceptable in building as 'best building practices', the same building practices that in the past approved the "leaky home building system". Can you trust it.

"The product the roof will be made of HMWPE hasn't been approved by BRANZ" (Building Regulation Association of NZ) one of the 3 men stated. Grant replied, "Is this is the same BRANZ that approved the leaky home system?". Humm, this created a moment of silence...yes was the only answer the team leader could give.

Instead of BRANZ , we have chartered independent professional engineers to test what we are proposing to use and relied on past assessment of this product in other applications. Producer Statements PS1 and PS4 are the documents that back up these tests and calculations made by engineers and the Councils are required by the Act to accept them as part of a consent application as long as they fit within the Performance of the particular structure they are specifically designed for,ie; ROOF.

After an hour of locking horns, Grant and the officers agreed to work together to find a solution. Now a lot of hoops needed jumping through before being granted consent. 17 points needed clarification on a range of ISSUES, which should enhance the overall fitness of the building.

It is required by the building act that a qualified professional states in writing that the proposed design (backed with relevant calculations and specifications) will meet the requirements set out in the Building Code. This is called a PS1 (Producer statement). For some reason, the processing officer stated 'they could disregard' these documents, but have since accepted them as a requirement of the act that they do accept them if they prove the Performance standards required.

On the 17th Feb our Building Consent was approved. Resource Consent was granted on 28th Jan.

12th February 2011
Confidentiality of your plans
Posted by Grant
Did you know that once you have submitted your plans and specs to the Council, The NZ Building Act give themselves the right to sell your plans unless you request confidentially for security reasons (Bank’s floor layout, exit and entry points, etc)?

What about your home design you paid expensive professionals (architect, engineer, geotechnical, etc) for? What about copyright protection of your intellectual property I.P? What about commercially sensitive information that is subject to copyright design and product protection of a new and innovative nature?

Now Mr Joe Bloggs can for a mere $79 obtain a copy of your plans and specs and get your approved house design plans built again without your consent or some kind of compensation for the authentic owners of the plans.

After rigorously debating the issue with the Council legal staff, this is what we received:

Confidentiality of Submitted Plans and Specifications
I refer to your letter received by WDC and our subsequent telephone discussions.
I confirm that copyright and commercial sensitivity is not a reason for Council to withhold releasing plans and specifications under Section 217 of the Building Act.

However you do have the right to request that the information regarding the specifications and plans submitted with your building consent be withheld under section 7 (2)(b) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to:
Protect information where the making available of the information
(i) Would disclose a trade secret or
(ii) Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

“Humm, maybe we do not have the same meaning for commercial sensitivity because this Section to me is all about commercial sensitivity”.

The letter finished on: I will advise our Building Team to make a note of this on your file and not to release any plans or specifications without first obtaining your consent to do so.

Interesting how I had to "fight" for the "right" to have the exclusivity of our own possessions...

25th February 2011
Building and Resource consents passed
Posted by Grant
We were sucessful in attaining our Consents within the 20 working day obligatory processing period the Local Autorities are bound to adhere to 'if all revevent information is submitted' and all inclusive for an acceptable total cost of less than $7000.00.

I commend the Planning and Building Consents Depts of the Whangarei District Council for maintaining an open and communicable presence throughout this process in order to move forward and obtain the big RED STAMP of approval.
I believe this council to be progressive and foward thinking and have an open view to geting it right first time.