By Bernard Hickey
Local Government Minister Paula Bennett has formally launched her Rules Reduction Taskforce aimed at finding 'loopy' property rules and regulations, naming the heads of the new body and setting up a website to solicit examples.
"People can now head to this rules reduction website, to start telling us what bugs them when it comes to loopy rules and regulations," Bennett said.
The Taskforce would be jointly chaired by National MP Jacqui Dean, who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary for Local Government, and Auckland Chamber of Commerce CEO Michael Barnett.
"Both Jacqui and Michael bring with them a strong understanding of the local government and business sectors and will be well placed to guide the Taskforce in its work to cut red tape," she said.
The remaining members of the Taskforce would be appointed within the next month, and would include central and local government experts, and specialists from the building and trades sector, with further announcements to come on the timeline for the Taskforce's work.
"I'm asking property owners, builders, tradespeople and businesses who have experienced the issues caused by irrelevant or unnecessary regulations, to help draw these to our attention," Bennett said.
The Taskforce would consider submissions and recommend changes.
"Central and local government need regulations which are effective, and help get the job done - not get in the way. Regulations that frustrate property owners and business people also suck up councils' precious resources in administration time and effort," she said.
"We need to hear from New Zealanders about examples that have got in the way of their building, renovation, landscaping, and home improvement plans, so that we can cut the red tape where it needs to be cut, to help them get on with the job."
Bennet first announced the creation of the Taskforce on July 23. See the video above of her announcing the taskforce in a Parliamentary question and Lynn Grieveson's article from that day, which elicited 51 comments.
Illegal jasmine
Bennett said in a later interview the Taskforce aimed to complete an initial report recommending some "quick wins" in March or April of next year. It would then issue a final report by the middle of next year with the potential for more substantial legislative change.
Bennett said some of the initial examples put forward were around inspections. She referred to one example of a home owner who had wanted to pull up some jasmine growing up a pool fence.
"It took two inspectors to come out twice, who then said it had to be modified because of where it was. It ended up costing thousands of dollars," she said.
Another example cited was of someone who wanted to make minor alterations to a toilet, but ended up having to install new lights, new push buttons and new paint at a cost of NZ$40,000.
Bennett said examples already cited were coming across New Zealand, including both smaller towns and bigger cities such as Auckland.
"Obviously they (councils) are risk averse. This is going to be the challenge with the task force," she said. Some of the risk aversion was legitimate around issues such as lead paint and leaky buildings, but it was now at a point that was nonsensical, she said.
Local Government New Zealand and Councils had been asked to recommend appointees for the taskforce, which is being run in tandem with one in Auckland led by Michael Barnett and one for the rest of the country led by Jacqui Dean.
Bennett said she was particularly interested to see if early anecdotes of more difficult rules in Auckland after the amalgamation of the councils was borne out in the Taskforce's final reports.
(Updated with comments from Paula Bennett in an interview)
17 Comments
The remaining members of the Taskforce would be appointed within the next month, and would include central and local government experts
Seriously? I am waiting excitedly for my phone call.
Of course they could have completed the job by now simply by mining the last three years of the interest.co.nz comment stream.
Sorry Kumbel, because you have knowledge about what is the right thing to do, you are automatically disqualified.
The experts they are after are experts in the lessons hardest learnt, experts in writing reports, experts in telling people what to do but never doing it themselves, experts in the process without caring about the outcome, experts in allowing the job take as long as the time they are given for it.
Still haven't got my call-up.
Oh well they will have lots of fun over the next year. Once the thrill of unearthing the loopy rules has faded a little they should see all the complaints falling into one of a handful of categories:
1. Loopy government rules - in building and public health councils only implement government rules
2. Protecting ratepayer interests - mostly avoiding being sued; pretty much a bottom line for anyone in governance, private or public
3. Mission drift- a genuine fault where insufficient management attention allows staff to wander off track (loopiness happens at the front line but councillors and senior management have no idea)
4. Complainant whinging: the complainant can't see why the rules should apply to them
5. There may actually be a genuine loopy rule where the council knowingly puts a rule in place that is incomprehensible to everyone
Fixing some of these will take a lot more effort from the taskforce than simply "name and shame".
Probably take on the un-employed, anybody with any sense would stear clear of this job, it is a hiding to nothing. I mean if it delivers nothing or little the Pollies and those with axes to grind will chew you up and when the cock ups occur the Pollies will use use as sacrificial goats....lots of blood letting.
regards
i wonder if they will start with a public/private partnership model, something like the NZ Meat Inspection process AsureQuality run.
I think Asure are within the Ministry of Business &Inovation as are Dept Building and Housing...? maybe something in that ?.
There must be a plan in place, otherwise if the would they give this to Paula Bennet, shes a "rising star", why would they give her a hospital pass???
So i have an apartment build planned... about 10 units, CBD, near the river... everyones excited, the Mayor has called, a couple of councellers have called (ones taken me for coffee to tell me how great it is!)...
But the news hasn't filtered downstairs...
So I asked a (engineering staff member) "simple" question... the properties in front of me (riverside) are in the floodpath... part of mine is an inundation area... whats a good floor level, to avoid flooding risk... 'there isn't one they said, get a comprehensive engineering report to tell you'... "we're going to put a section 72 on the property as soon as you do anything".
"Hang on" i said, the neigbours one side developed 7 years ago, and built to xyz level... they don't have a section 72... then the neighbours on the other side developed about 5 years ago, and were told to build to abc level & they dont have a section 72... Oh, then they applied for a variation to their consent (retrospectivly) and YOU PERSONALLY signed of a non notified consent after they built lower than the specified level!...
THEN you upgraded the road, the riverbank and the stormwater... so have you made things worse?, 'not that we're aware of' they said, 'but things change'.
That's strange i said, ive got your document 123 in front of me stateing that 'flooding hazards along the abc river are the best understood of any hazards in our area'...
So if they understand the hazard so well, (and they have got comprehensive & expensive reporting data on this)... couldn't they just say, well we told one neigbour abc and the other xyz... so you go xyz + 500mm
Practicality and common sense are so far lost, that I worry for this country. There is so much risk adversion that I fear this process will be long and slow and ultimatly result in central government having to take control of vast parts of the planning and consenting process.
Subdividing some land in the Top of the South. Council says "Oh, 1 in 100year rain event, you'll need to put in a 750mm culvert to manage the extra runoff from the building site"
The building site's on the other side of the natural ridge on the property and doesn't drain to the pond, the soil's clay with an absorption capacity of almost zero, so after a light rain, EVERYTHING'S been running off FOR EVER.
And the 750mm culvert (which I had to build...) feeds into a 500mm culvert and then into a 300mm culvert, the latter 2 owned by council.
My idea was to dredge the pond to create a buffer reservoir, but they just looked at me as if I was trying to explain quantum physics by yodelling...
Ultimately I'll probably have to... Which makes me wonder why they are spending thousands on reports, if they aren't able to draw conclusions from it.
The problem is the lack of common sense... They won't say ANYTHING.
They won't say, 'based on what each neighbour was permitted to do', & the fact we had a 1 in 50 year even in 2011 (which didn't come close to flooding you), & that it's one of the oldest parts of the city & nobody can recollect floods in your site... Aim for xyz when you do your consent application. Otherwise why do they exist, privatise it and allow organisations that will properly ascertain risk and consider precedence.
I pay these guys plenty, to just hide behind ambiguous legislation.
The fact that we need more/affordable housing and current regulations/legislation are complete opposites.
Dear Aunty Paula......what really bugs me is that the pyramid needs turning upside down......the base of the pyramid is all business.......followed by their employees.....and moves up to the civil servants, burueacrats and then of course you Aunty Paula and all your associates........all that waiting and pushing up to the top of the pyramid requires enormous amounts of wasted energy............and what trickles over is like snow thaw from the mountains......and stops at the breaucracy and civil servants with only a few droplets able to filter through.
I think if you turned the pyramid upside down..........a small point at the bottom with you Aunty Paula and your collegues........and with emphasis on all those documents that make up the constitutional rights of the people........a splattering of bureaucrats/civil servants........the employees and then the broad-base at the top being all the small and medium size businesses..........notice I ommitted big corporates........quite deliberately by the way......(this would remove the ever expanding corporate welfare that is plaguing our fine country).......now Aunty Paula you have created a river and the water can run effortlessly downhill.
If you take 90% of the rules, regulation and legislation and remove them to place a where they can no longer do any harm..........fortunately you don't have to burn them which would upset the Greens......(thank goodness for the delete button).........and then Aunty Paula sit back and watch our fine country and all the people thrive beyond your wildest dreams!!!!!
Seriously Aunty Paula.......we would be the envy of all Nations with the wealthiest population basis in the world........everyone would be in the home of their choice.........and you'd keep getting elected every three years.....so career wise a very good move for you.
Welcome to the first meeting of our TaskForce.
You will have all noted that the new Build Anything Anywhere Act (BAAA 2014 henceforth) mandates three overarching principles for any subsidiary rules and regulations, and as would be expected of a 'clean-slate' approach, has declared null and void every existing zone, rule and regulation made by any TLA, as well as repealing all existing LBP provisions.
1 Land uses are to be dealt with via their Effects, as per the RMA.
2 Buildings are to be consented via objective nationally-determined tests during construction (as with cars, boats, caravans and aeroplanes)
3 Where a proposal is determined to be one of the following, no consent shall be necessary and no fee shall be payable in arriving at said determination:
- Low-risk in terms of effects on neighbours and inhabitants
- Factory-built
- Nationally type-approved
- Single-storey, floor area <= 100 squares
Agenda Item 1:
We now have a surplus of planners, zoners, and other assorted former economic deadweights. They have been roundly rejected for re-employment by the construction industry. Please consider suggestions for their re-deployment.
Agenda Item 2:
We are stuck with formerly urban-zoned land, just inside the old MUL/RUB boundaries, which is valued at high multiples of land on the other side of former said boundaries/zones. Please advance sensible suggestions for capturing this unearned surplus, and for its redeployment.
Agenda Item 3:
The Principles require nationally set, objective standards for testing such constructions as require formal consent. Please consider what test regimes, equipment and personnel will be best placed to carry out this effort.
Break for gumboot tea and sausage rolls.
Meanwhile, in the revenue generating office at Auckland City Council:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj
ectid=11345836
That is on top of the high property rates + user charges for everything. What is needed to complete the circle is some sorts of building permit to remove the bricks.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.