Best way to Deal With City Council?

Forums › Off topic › Best way to Deal With City Council?

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 261350 22-Nov-2019 09:20

We will be building a new house in Christchurch.

We have run into an issue where the council is saying our proposed driveway is non-compliant, but we firmly believe they are applying a regulation incorrectly as their are several houses on our street alone that have their driveways like ours and did not require any additional resource consents to do so.

What is the best way to argue our point with council without getting on the wrong side of them?

We can likely get a resource consent to get this through, but that is additional money that's not in the budget, and on principal we don't feel like we should have to if our plan is not in violation of any rules.

For those who are familiar with the process, this is a Section 37 PIM issue. Building consent has been applied for and is currently being processed.

Thanks

Home: Work:
Home Work

1 | 2

Chief Trash Bandit
10158 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 2359195 22-Nov-2019 09:43

IME councils can just say "regulations changed 6 months ago" and theres nothing you can do about it. But ask them politely as to why others in the area are allowed it - maybe someone is just looking at the wrong consent for your build.

When our neighbor built, she wanted the driveway at the same level as previous one, so then gave us all a big turning area etc, which made sense and would be fantastic. Council said no. Her drive way is now about 15cm higher than ours - causes all sorts of fun with courier drivers trying to turn around in our drive thinking both drives are level - *crunch* "OH FFS" :D

XPD / Gavin / DemiseNZ

Server : i5-3470s @ 3.50GHz 16GB RAM Win 10 Pro Workstation : Ryzen 5 3600 / 16GB DDR4 / RX580 4GB Console : Xbox One

Now on BigPipe 100/100 and 2Talk Add me on Steam

Kim587

91 posts

Master Geek

# 2359197 22-Nov-2019 09:43

2 people support this post

I'd start by asking the exact planning rule they say it doesn't comply with. Hopefully it is relatively black and white. You might find the design only needs minor alterations to be compliant. Councils are normally quite good at offering free advice about things like this. I think the CCC has a programme where you can have a free meeting with a planner to discuss issues like this.

I recently built (but with Selwyn District Council), needed a resource consent because the driveway was too close to the neighbors' shared driveway but from memory it was under $200 and was covered by the provisional sum for consents in the contract. Wasn't worth worrying about at all.

I wouldn't worry too much about the other properties. Their design might be slightly different, the builder might have sorted resource consents without the new owners knowing, regs might have changed since they were built, or you might end up proving they're all non-compliant!

Fred99

8905 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359206 22-Nov-2019 09:58

A problem with getting resource consent for non-compliant driveway is that Council considers it a safety issue, and it'll be Council themselves opposing consent.

So this a different situation from getting resource consent where a development may infringe on the rights of neighbours as defined in the district plan, but consent may be granted if the neighbours give written consent to waive their rights.

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359211 22-Nov-2019 10:02

We know the exact rule they are citing, and why they are saying we aren't compliant. We feel in our case the rule can be interpreted in 2 ways, and the way they have interpreted it for us just doesn't make practical sense.

Other houses on the street (which are all new builds) would have to have radically different driveways to comply with this interpretation. Also driving around other new subdivisions this rule doesn't seem to be interpreted this way to the majority of the houses it could apply to.

Whether one interpretation is "right" and the other "wrong" I probably couldn't say. But it seems like we have been singled out for how they are interpreting the rule to our plan.

It isn't an option to change the driveway in the manner that the council says is required to avoid resource consent.

Fred99

8905 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359212 22-Nov-2019 10:05

What's the actual issue? Not wide enough, no sealed turning area, garage too close to the road etc?

They really don't like situations where by default, people may need to reverse back out to the road and/or across footpaths where there's not good visibility.
There are specific rules for width and provision of turning areas with shared driveways.

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359218 22-Nov-2019 10:17

Fred99:

What's the actual issue? Not wide enough, no sealed turning area, garage too close to the road etc?

It's a little complicated, I'll try to explain:

The rule in question is 7.4.3.4 Manoeuvring for parking and loading areas:

Any activity with a vehicle access to six or more car parking spaces: On-site manoeuvring area shall be provided to ensure that a vehicle can manoeuvre in a forward gear on to and off a site.

Black and white in most circumstances.

Our property has access to only 2 parking spaces. However the property is accessed via a private lane, and the council is saying the private lane has access to more than 6 parking spaces (i.e. all the neighbours parking spaces), and we therefore need to incorporate manoeuvring on our private driveway. Even though the private lane (which we have full ROW easement over) already provides ample manoeuvring space.

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359223 22-Nov-2019 10:24

Fred99:

They really don't like situations where by default, people may need to reverse back out to the road and/or across footpaths where there's not good visibility.
There are specific rules for width and provision of turning areas with shared driveways.

We don't have a footpath on our side of the lane.

Can you point me towards the the rules around shared driveways? In my view the private lane is essentially a shared driveway.

EDIT: From what I can tell, pretty much every house on the lane is required to reverse out of their driveway into the private lane, they can then drive forward onto the public road. But we are being told we need to be able to drive forward out of our driveway into the private lane.

Fred99

8905 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359229 22-Nov-2019 10:39

OK. A neighbour sharing our driveway built a new garage. They absolutely had to create a turning area on their site - which was a major engineering exercise . Sloping site, and the only two acceptable options were to install a turntable, or build a turning area - which was elevated and cost a fortune to construct. Yet our place next door, we don't have a turning area on the section and it's been that way since 1962, there's a turning area on the shared driveway we use.

Sorry to be pessimistic. Someone suggested a meeting with Council planner - I think that's a good idea. There may be options they'd find acceptable to get around the problem.

Edit:

I *think* the rules for each zone, including parking and driveways etc, are outlined in the PDF files you can find here:

https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/before-you-apply/planning-zones-and-maps/

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359236 22-Nov-2019 10:53

Thanks.

I guess I do need to just talk to someone from CCC in person to discuss it and see what can be done.

Deamo

47 posts

Geek

# 2359243 22-Nov-2019 11:10

this may be overly simplistic.. but I'm wondering if your property would bring the parking spaces to 6 for the lane?

If so that would seem to explain why you've been tagged with this requirement when no other existing house has

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359251 22-Nov-2019 11:18

Deamo:

this may be overly simplistic.. but I'm wondering if your property would bring the parking spaces to 6 for the lane?

If so that would seem to explain why you've been tagged with this requirement when no other existing house has

There were already at least 6 or 7 houses, so that would be 12-14 parking spaces (plus 3 shared parking spaces).

Kim587

91 posts

Master Geek

# 2359256 22-Nov-2019 11:27

I'm wondering if yours actually falls under clause vii - a local street outside the Central City core and the vehicle access serves six or more parking spaces.

If you look at their definition of a 'site' it 'includes the access to the site' so I would've thought the real intention was to make sure you didn't have to reverse down the lane and onto the road - which it sounds like you don't need to do. Maybe ask that question when you talk with them.

nathan

5216 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Microsoft

# 2359258 22-Nov-2019 11:29

4 people support this post

And we wonder why houses in NZ are expensive, and things cost lots with all this crazy self serving red tape

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359269 22-Nov-2019 11:41

Kim587:

I'm wondering if yours actually falls under clause vii - a local street outside the Central City core and the vehicle access serves six or more parking spaces.

If you look at their definition of a 'site' it 'includes the access to the site' so I would've thought the real intention was to make sure you didn't have to reverse down the lane and onto the road - which it sounds like you don't need to do. Maybe ask that question when you talk with them.

@Kim587 thanks very much for that. I would also assume that is the intention of the rule.

They are definitely quoting clause iii, but I believe their definition of "site" works for that as well to make me compliant.

Site includes access to the site

I would take that to mean we are entering our "site" as soon as we enter the private lane, and are not exiting the "site" until we exit the private lane.

Thanks again, because I think that is the most succinct way to explain my position.

Paul1977

2843 posts

Uber Geek

# 2359274 22-Nov-2019 11:45

One person supports this post

nathan: And we wonder why houses in NZ are expensive, and things cost lots with all this crazy self serving red tape

I understand the importance of having rules, it's just that the can be very difficult to understand them sometimes.

1 | 2