issue with installing a new vehicle crossing, any ideas

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › issue with installing a new vehicle crossing, any ideas

greenbone

176 posts

Master Geek

#165531 12-Feb-2015 14:39

so we purchased an empty section in south auckland, with a view to moving a house on. to get title issued, the vendor had to supply a vehicle crossing to the site.

at the time of purchase we only had an approximate idea of where the house would sit on site - somewhere on the east side of the property.

the vendor, just wanting to get the title issued and move on, installed a new 6 x 4 (ie quite large) exposed aggregate (ie quite expensive) crossing on the north side, from the road to the boundary.

thats fair enough we thought, we werent too worried - could just use it as alternate access to the rear of the property, or just fence across it and leave it redundant

so we move the house on to site, and prep for the new driveway / garage / parking pad to the east side of the property

now AT come to inspect the new eastern vehicle crossing, and tell us they wont issue consent until the northen crossing is pulled up, the footpath replaced, and the kerb reinstated ...

seem ridiculous that they want this brand new crossing removed. its not like we intended to have dual driveways, it was there when we purchased the site and had no influence on the positioning of our house on the *council approved* site plan . cant even just block it off - has to be removed

worth escalating?

timmmay

20589 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1236610 12-Feb-2015 14:42

AT?

sidefx

3713 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1236664 12-Feb-2015 15:34

timmmay: AT?

Auckland Transport

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1425 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1236698 12-Feb-2015 16:42

greenbone: so we purchased an empty section in south auckland, with a view to moving a house on. to get title issued, the vendor had to supply a vehicle crossing to the site.

at the time of purchase we only had an approximate idea of where the house would sit on site - somewhere on the east side of the property.

the vendor, just wanting to get the title issued and move on, installed a new 6 x 4 (ie quite large) exposed aggregate (ie quite expensive) crossing on the north side, from the road to the boundary.

thats fair enough we thought, we werent too worried - could just use it as alternate access to the rear of the property, or just fence across it and leave it redundant

so we move the house on to site, and prep for the new driveway / garage / parking pad to the east side of the property

now AT come to inspect the new eastern vehicle crossing, and tell us they wont issue consent until the northen crossing is pulled up, the footpath replaced, and the kerb reinstated ...

seem ridiculous that they want this brand new crossing removed. its not like we intended to have dual driveways, it was there when we purchased the site and had no influence on the positioning of our house on the *council approved* site plan . cant even just block it off - has to be removed

worth escalating?

So I assume the plans for the building consent you already have already had the new crossing on the plan?

and Auckland transport are just now looking at the proposed crossing because it doesn't form part of the building consent... Have I got this right?

or have you already got the new crossing?

Matthew

Niel

3267 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1236783 12-Feb-2015 20:05

What you experience is correct, you need to remove the original one and re-instate the footpath and plant the grass mix they specify. But this all should already have been covered by the building consent, was it not? The reason for completely removing the old crossing is partly because it ensures you do not add a second dwelling with its own entrance while registering it as a single dwelling site, or so I'm told. IMO it generates income and adds red tape, never mind the waste it generates.

We built a new house in Pakuranga (East Auckland) on a section which already had a small house, then removed the small house. The new house layout meant we wanted the driveway and crossing on the other end of the section. The council required us to do all the above, not just reinstate the footpath. And note the curb stones are really expensive. Make sure you do it exactly as they say, and some/most of the work must be done by people approved/certified to do footpaths/crossings. It is not worth getting it wrong, you're dealing with Council/AT. We even had to get resource consent (and plant a specimen tree, which may be periodically inspected at our cost...) to evaluate the impact on the neighbours for having 2 houses on one section for 9 months and increased traffic. Many neighbours did not even know we built until the old house was removed... No wonder there is not enough houses built fast enough.

You can never have enough Volvos!

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1236906 13-Feb-2015 03:07

Niel: What you experience is correct, you need to remove the original one and re-instate the footpath and plant the grass mix they specify. But this all should already have been covered by the building consent, was it not? The reason for completely removing the old crossing is partly because it ensures you do not add a second dwelling with its own entrance while registering it as a single dwelling site, or so I'm told. IMO it generates income and adds red tape, never mind the waste it generates.

We built a new house in Pakuranga (East Auckland) on a section which already had a small house, then removed the small house. The new house layout meant we wanted the driveway and crossing on the other end of the section. The council required us to do all the above, not just reinstate the footpath. And note the curb stones are really expensive. Make sure you do it exactly as they say, and some/most of the work must be done by people approved/certified to do footpaths/crossings. It is not worth getting it wrong, you're dealing with Council/AT. We even had to get resource consent (and plant a specimen tree, which may be periodically inspected at our cost...) to evaluate the impact on the neighbours for having 2 houses on one section for 9 months and increased traffic. Many neighbours did not even know we built until the old house was removed... No wonder there is not enough houses built fast enough.

To be fair, it keeps a lot of pencil pushers in jobs.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

Niel

3267 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1236910 13-Feb-2015 06:53

And because you are not allowed to use reinforced concrete, if you move a house you will damage the footpath/crossing and you will have to repair it and have it inspected. The house moving company probably would have arranged that for the OP (except repairs).

Digressing a bit, but you know if you subdivide a section (add a housing unit) there is a development fee you pay to the council. It is a few thousand dollars to pay for increased requirements for libraries, parks, services, etc. With the high number of houses built in Auckland (and other areas), how come library hours are being reduced? In an established area, how can the council add more parks? When do services get upgraded (i.e. water pipe size increased)? Though the bill we pay Water Care pays for that. Rates pay for the extra rubbish removal. Bus fares pay for extra busses. And if we don't have money for roading, how come we are intensifying housing?

Hope you get somewhere on the crossing issue, hopefully find the council made a mistake in approval without telling you about the crossing removal, but sorry I'm not optimistic.

You can never have enough Volvos!

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1237146 13-Feb-2015 11:04

Niel: And because you are not allowed to use reinforced concrete, if you move a house you will damage the footpath/crossing and you will have to repair it and have it inspected. The house moving company probably would have arranged that for the OP (except repairs).

Digressing a bit, but you know if you subdivide a section (add a housing unit) there is a development fee you pay to the council. It is a few thousand dollars to pay for increased requirements for libraries, parks, services, etc. With the high number of houses built in Auckland (and other areas), how come library hours are being reduced? In an established area, how can the council add more parks? When do services get upgraded (i.e. water pipe size increased)? Though the bill we pay Water Care pays for that. Rates pay for the extra rubbish removal. Bus fares pay for extra busses. And if we don't have money for roading, how come we are intensifying housing?

Hope you get somewhere on the crossing issue, hopefully find the council made a mistake in approval without telling you about the crossing removal, but sorry I'm not optimistic.

I'm pretty sure councils up and down the country spend those development fees there and then on their pet projects, and then when they do upgrade or replace services they increase rates and/or take on debt to cover those costs.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

greenbone

176 posts

Master Geek

#1239932 16-Feb-2015 12:36

thanks for the replies

yes the new crossing was shown on the plans, but not really a concern for AT as theyre only interested in signing off the crossing, not the site as a whole

having to remove the existing crossing will be a disaster - im in civil for work - just the costs of traffic management for 2 days are ridiculous, let alone extraction and tipping of reinforced concrete, new kerb installtion etc

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1239981 16-Feb-2015 13:01

That's the trouble with natural monopolies like councils. They have you by the balls and have no incentive to contain their costs and their charges.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

richms

28192 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1239985 16-Feb-2015 13:10

Do you even need a crossing? See plenty around here where people just drive over the verge and have dumped gravel down.

Richard rich.ms

Gordy7

1906 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1240002 16-Feb-2015 13:25

I sold off a back section in Napier that opened off to a side street.

I used a surveyor do all the processing and he organised a deferment with the council of the crossing construction until after the purchaser completed building construction.

Gordy

My first ever AM radio network connection was with a 1MHz AM crystal(OA91) radio receiver.

greenbone

176 posts

Master Geek

#1242015 18-Feb-2015 21:46

good news - replied to the AT inspectors email, basically asking "can we just keep it please?"

he replied today saying he spoke to his boss, and we can keep it ... just need to sign off the new crossing now

thats a huge amount of time and money saved, im pretty glad it was resolved so neatly

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1242160 19-Feb-2015 10:52

greenbone: good news - replied to the AT inspectors email, basically asking "can we just keep it please?"

he replied today saying he spoke to his boss, and we can keep it ... just need to sign off the new crossing now

thats a huge amount of time and money saved, im pretty glad it was resolved so neatly

That is awesome news - congratulations!