Recession Plane compliance.

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Recession Plane compliance.

1 | 2 | 3

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1968134 5-Mar-2018 09:46

nickb800:

My understanding is that there are two avenues to get approval for this sort of district plan rule breach.

1) Boundary activity - get neighbours approval of your plan directly (sign their plans), and you can go ahead and break the rule (e.g. recession plane)

2) Resource consent - apply to council, they may approach neighbours (may not?), assess impacts of the breach against the reasons for the rule and make a ruling. Clearly more expensive than (1)!

Sounds like they are trying route 1, although running it concurrent with building consent seems ballsy

He asked for my feedback that's all so far, I said I'll read it overnight, he said take a week. The application has been sent in with three intrusions in the design, one that affects me two that affect the south side, which is the lee side, the shadow side. To know this, show this, and seek issue of the approval documents is a bit naughty of the designer. One liners that its minimal, paragraphs of how it affects their building. Overstate their issue understate the neighbours issue. While I have no desire to play hardball I would prefer they designed to the District Plan and altered the location slightly, the roof height/angle slightly to meet the recession plane

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1968155 5-Mar-2018 10:04

nickb800:

My understanding is that there are two avenues to get approval for this sort of district plan rule breach.

1) Boundary activity - get neighbours approval of your plan directly (sign their plans), and you can go ahead and break the rule (e.g. recession plane)

2) Resource consent - apply to council, they may approach neighbours (may not?), assess impacts of the breach against the reasons for the rule and make a ruling. Clearly more expensive than (1)!

Sounds like they are trying route 1, although running it concurrent with building consent seems ballsy

This letter to the Council is a request for Resource Consent due to the three recession plane issues. Although it also states that the two gables of max 7.5m allowance are actually 9.8 metres each

I called CCC, the Duty Planner will call me when he/she is free

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#1968211 5-Mar-2018 10:52

tdgeek:

While I have no desire to play hardball .....

why not.
It seems that the designer , and therefore landowner , are trying to get this pushed through regardless
of what you think .

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1968217 5-Mar-2018 10:59

1101:

tdgeek:

While I have no desire to play hardball .....

why not.
It seems that the designer , and therefore landowner , are trying to get this pushed through regardless
of what you think .

I agree now. My sense of fairness has been over taken by a sense of back door antics by the designer. Rules are rules, otherwise there is no point to them.

Lastman

306 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1968227 5-Mar-2018 11:20

Rules are rules, otherwise there is no point to them.

Unfortunately that is not entirely true after the changes the National Government made to the RMA. Planners have a fair amount of leeway to skirt around the edges of the rules.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1968229 5-Mar-2018 11:28

Lastman:
Rules are rules, otherwise there is no point to them.

Unfortunately that is not entirely true after the changes the National Government made to the RMA. Planners have a fair amount of leeway to skirt around the edges of the rules.

What changes were these?

smalltrader

174 posts

Master Geek

#1968230 5-Mar-2018 11:29

tdgeek:

1101:

tdgeek:

While I have no desire to play hardball .....

why not.
It seems that the designer , and therefore landowner , are trying to get this pushed through regardless
of what you think .

I agree now. My sense of fairness has been over taken by a sense of back door antics by the designer. Rules are rules, otherwise there is no point to them.

I have seen a lot of games being played in other cases in real life. There is no fairness in the whole resource consent process. There is no definition of "less than minor" effect in the Act. One other people had already said this - 90% of the time, Council Planner will side with the designer given the huge pressure on housing. This leaves affected parties with only legal route to challenge the decision which costs a lot of money. Usually, the designer is all out to get what he wants and wouldn't give a toss about neighbors.

My advice is to talk to the Council Planner as a starter. If you can afford it, suggest talking to an independent Planner to get some advice as well.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1968240 5-Mar-2018 12:17

CCC called back. They have not yet applied for PIM or Resource Consent, so unsure what the purpose of this letter to the CCC was for.

When they apply for PIM (which is due to non compliance and the need to apply for Resource Consent for the recession plane intrusions) CCC will assess the proposal, someone will possibly visit and assess the site. If they deem the intrusions are very minimal, CCC can ok it. Example given was the roof doesn't intrude but guttering does. If they see a genuine intrusion they will ask for written consent to be arranged or amend the plans. If written consent is not given, they set it as limited notified, we get a letter asking us to submit. No doubt the owner will want a chat.

If that occurs I see an owner neighbour discussion why its really minimal for me, but my buildings will be affected! I might see if I can meet the other neighbour to see what they have been advised. IMO their issue is more than mine as they are on the shadow casting side, yet my address was noted and Google mapped on this letter. As if he had talked to that neighbour and they didnt mind? Unless he lives there as he lives in the same street as the empty lot

JayADee

2148 posts

Uber Geek

#1968250 5-Mar-2018 12:49

Good lord, I'd be saying no!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1968253 5-Mar-2018 12:56

tdgeek:

CCC called back. They have not yet applied for PIM or Resource Consent, so unsure what the purpose of this letter to the CCC was for.

When they apply for PIM (which is due to non compliance and the need to apply for Resource Consent for the recession plane intrusions) CCC will assess the proposal, someone will possibly visit and assess the site. If they deem the intrusions are very minimal, CCC can ok it. Example given was the roof doesn't intrude but guttering does. If they see a genuine intrusion they will ask for written consent to be arranged or amend the plans. If written consent is not given, they set it as limited notified, we get a letter asking us to submit. No doubt the owner will want a chat.

If that occurs I see an owner neighbour discussion why its really minimal for me, but my buildings will be affected! I might see if I can meet the other neighbour to see what they have been advised. IMO their issue is more than mine as they are on the shadow casting side, yet my address was noted and Google mapped on this letter. As if he had talked to that neighbour and they didnt mind? Unless he lives there as he lives in the same street as the empty lot

Be very careful with this.

Builder / developers know the rules, and can be very prone to "stretch the truth" a little here and there, draw the ground a little higher than a surveyor may measure it etc. When sprung later, it's an innocent "oh oops" from the developer and they ask council to forgive the non-compliance they pretended they didn't always know about, as it's "within 5%" or whatever. Very seldom does council nail them - and get them to demolish and rebuild that component of the building. Next trick to expect if they play those games or if they think neighbours are going to delay them is to show you some non consented drawings which will meet resource consent hence they won't need your permission, but they'll have a rooftop balcony or something looking directly into your back yard or something else like a fire rated wall for a garage right on your boundary that'll give you the utter sh!ts, and they'll suggest that if you don't sign, then that's going to be their "only alternative".

If they've got to the stage of having a draughtsperson or architect draw up something that they know won't meet zoning requirements, they absolutely will already have a "plan B".

You've already determined that it's all about money - they want to maximise return on investment - as they don't need a 4 brm townhouse for a retired couple, they're investing for maximum return for when the elderly couple shuffle off elsewhere.

I'm all for being reasonable when something isn't going to affect you much, but I'm extremely distrustful of those involved in this type of development.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1968256 5-Mar-2018 13:18

Fred99:

tdgeek:

CCC called back. They have not yet applied for PIM or Resource Consent, so unsure what the purpose of this letter to the CCC was for.

When they apply for PIM (which is due to non compliance and the need to apply for Resource Consent for the recession plane intrusions) CCC will assess the proposal, someone will possibly visit and assess the site. If they deem the intrusions are very minimal, CCC can ok it. Example given was the roof doesn't intrude but guttering does. If they see a genuine intrusion they will ask for written consent to be arranged or amend the plans. If written consent is not given, they set it as limited notified, we get a letter asking us to submit. No doubt the owner will want a chat.

If that occurs I see an owner neighbour discussion why its really minimal for me, but my buildings will be affected! I might see if I can meet the other neighbour to see what they have been advised. IMO their issue is more than mine as they are on the shadow casting side, yet my address was noted and Google mapped on this letter. As if he had talked to that neighbour and they didnt mind? Unless he lives there as he lives in the same street as the empty lot

Be very careful with this.

Builder / developers know the rules, and can be very prone to "stretch the truth" a little here and there, draw the ground a little higher than a surveyor may measure it etc. When sprung later, it's an innocent "oh oops" from the developer and they ask council to forgive the non-compliance they pretended they didn't always know about, as it's "within 5%" or whatever. Very seldom does council nail them - and get them to demolish and rebuild that component of the building. Next trick to expect if they play those games or if they think neighbours are going to delay them is to show you some non consented drawings which will meet resource consent hence they won't need your permission, but they'll have a rooftop balcony or something looking directly into your back yard or something else like a fire rated wall for a garage right on your boundary that'll give you the utter sh!ts, and they'll suggest that if you don't sign, then that's going to be their "only alternative".

If they've got to the stage of having a draughtsperson or architect draw up something that they know won't meet zoning requirements, they absolutely will already have a "plan B".

You've already determined that it's all about money - they want to maximise return on investment - as they don't need a 4 brm townhouse for a retired couple, they're investing for maximum return for when the elderly couple shuffle off elsewhere.

I'm all for being reasonable when something isn't going to affect you much, but I'm extremely distrustful of those involved in this type of development.

Agreed. The letter is from the architect to CCC, so there will be a plan B, they will expect to seek agreement from us two neighbours. Unless the other nighbour is the owner. Oddly, the land has been market gardened for a year or so, I have two lots of courgettes to prove it. Maybe what I thought was neighbourly was a softening approach

From what the Duty Planner has told me, nothing will go past us, we will be advised, either by being asked for written permission or being advised by a letter from CCC that we can give a submission. She also said to call next week to see what has been applied for. As to your advice, thank you Fred, I will keep CCC as my middle man. Be nice but talk to them first

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1968272 5-Mar-2018 13:36

In Wellington my neighbour built a ****ing ugly monstrosity totally out of keeping with the other houses around and about. He was able to do it, but one thing I learned was it was possible to register an interest on the build as being *potentially* affected, the result being I had to be consulted if there were any exceptions to the regulations, at all.

The neighbour had a crack at putting in a lesser, non-fireproof, wall against another neighbours boundary and the council forced the dude to consult. My other neighbours said ‘no, must be fully compliant’. He had to do it properly, albeit I get no-one checked.

He actually encroached one corner of the house on a right of way, which he shares with me and the second neighbour; I noticed once I saw the plans, albeit too late - only after it was built. The encroachment isn’t a big deal.

I couldn’t do anything about the ugliness of the building itself though. Looks like a worse version of Colditz.

Lastman

306 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1968282 5-Mar-2018 14:01

kryptonjohn:
Lastman:
Rules are rules, otherwise there is no point to them.

Unfortunately that is not entirely true after the changes the National Government made to the RMA. Planners have a fair amount of leeway to skirt around the edges of the rules.

What changes were these?

If you go back to my previous post the key words are “minor or less than minor”.

If a planner thinks an environmental effect eg recession plane exemption, is subjectively “minor or less than minor” then they do not need to notify the resource consent application.

A seamingly small change has had a major effect. Several TV news items have run on this in recent times.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1968297 5-Mar-2018 14:34

Lastman:
kryptonjohn:

Lastman:
Rules are rules, otherwise there is no point to them.

Unfortunately that is not entirely true after the changes the National Government made to the RMA. Planners have a fair amount of leeway to skirt around the edges of the rules.

What changes were these?

If you go back to my previous post the key words are “minor or less than minor”.

If a planner thinks an environmental effect eg recession plane exemption, is subjectively “minor or less than minor” then they do not need to notify the resource consent application.

A seamingly small change has had a major effect. Several TV news items have run on this in recent times.

Yes, Ive read minor and less then minor on various links. Below from CCC states that any intrusion will get looked at, she quoted minor as the gutter example I gave.

QUOTE CCC

When a proposed building only breaches “boundary rules”

(e.g. setback from a neighbour’s boundary, or the daylight

recession plane angle), a resource consent is not needed if

written approval is obtained from the owners of the properties

on the other side of the boundary. Their approval is required

regardless of whether the building breaches the rule by a small

or large amount.

END OF QUOTE

In my case its 1.4 metres, so CCC will decide if thats minor or not, over the phone they saw not. The thing with this is, I see grey areas I also see B+W. But CCC assured me I will not be bypassed and to call next week to see what happening

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1968300 5-Mar-2018 14:48

I have been close to someone who went through the process of trying to get a council to notify a consent of a neighboring properties project in the past, as they believed it would affect them, and also affect their property value. The applicant made no contact with neighbors at all, and hired a lawyer to write the letter to the council, as well as planners. They made it clear in the letter that they didn't think it should be notified. I think the council puts a lot of faith in the experts the applicants hire, and they ended up not notifying it, as the council officers agreed with the applicants experts that it would less than minor. From my understanding some of the only ways to challenge the council from my understanding, is to pay 10's pf thousands to go to the environment court or for a judicial review, and I think the councils know most people wouldn't do that. I am not a fan of the current system, as it all comes down to the council staff at the end of the day and it is very subjective, and they have a lot of power. I don't think people realize how much power council staff have, until they go through this sort of thing. I don't blame councils either, as this is the system they have to work with. IMO there should be a low cost way for challenging these sorts of decisions, as the current system is far too expensive for homeowners. On the flipside though, if projects were too difficult and expensive, then nothing would be built, and every building project would have huge costs associated with it. So I guess this is sort of a middle ground.

1 | 2 | 3