Building Consents - Is it really worth the hassle?

More
10 years 6 months ago #29988 by max2
This is something that has played on my mind earlier this year when we had an inspector have a pick over our ongoing building consent. Most of you are familiar with the reasons for our rebuild in NZ, for those of you who don't unusual circumstances have delayed normal building practices for us.

last week I had a call from another (more pleasant inspector) asking us to apply for an extention of time which is fine and I have done so. However in our road we are surrounded by people who live in barns, garages and towed on houses that are substantially incomplete. In one case I am aware that they haven't applied for a BC at all since bringing the bach on. (none of these are m*ori t*tles either). Our insurance companies have never asked for compliance dates either...

For those of you who have gone through the expensive consent process, do you feel at the end that you were any better off than your neighbours who haven't? I know it makes selling a property far more easier, but I just wonder why we keep getting visits when its obvious the right thing has occured and those living in their barns and sheds nearby dont.. at the end of the day what difference does it make if we take 2 years more to complete the finals than someone who hasn't applied at all?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405428 by Cinsara
Gosh swag how flaming irritating and I'm sure costly.

>

Save the Earth... it's the only planet with chocolate!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405431 by max2
The extention of time application doesn't cost us any extra, although as you may know costs for building consent are not cheap by any means, thus why some people don't bother. However it was indicated that we may not be given any more than 6 months extention or we would have to undergo the whole process (and cost) again, and I just wonder why when others don''t go through the BC process and don't get council coming down their driveways to check....:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405432 by stephclark
they are a bleeding nuisance and i think having a BC application just draws attention to yourself..but having got a bc application in the system, it is far cheeper to just get extensions before the expiry date and then build on at your speed...

for those in 'iligal' builds..probs arise with insurance and resale..or if it falls on someone..

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405434 by kalnetta
Down here the Council does a fly over and anything that is not consented is noted and the pressure has in the past been put on to get consent or remove the building.

View Hill Oxford ,23 ewes 2 lambs ,1 ram,, 1cat,the 2 of us,6 granddaughters,one grandson,2 surrogate granddaughters and one step grandson,poor boy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405468 by muri
There are a number of issues for work that does not have consent. Firstly, if you take out insurance, but there is no permit for the work and you know that, certain things may not be covered. For example, a fire caused by wiring that does not have a code of compliance, will not be covered by your insurance company. Ditto any other failing of uncertified work will not be covered. You need to declare to your insurance company what is compliant and what is not. They will not cover costs to get a new building permit either if your current place is not compliant. Insurance companies are very good at wriggling out of stuff so its a big consideration.
If you want to sell your property, man y people want to have a LIM report and know they are buying a property that is compliant. Most people are put off by buildings that dont comply.
I bought this place after it had been on the market a while and no one wanted it because of all the illegal work. It would probably cost a lot more to bring it up to compliancy standards than building new!
So the price dropped $100,000 by the time I looked at it. So the old owners, who did all the non compliant work lost that amount of money.
What your neighbours do is really of no concern in real life because if you all went to sell your houses your with your permit would probably get market value, but they wouldnt

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405473 by highgirl
Building consents [;)] :D [}:)] I must have missed your rebuild story, and ours isn't a rebuild its a complete build so we wouldn't have got away without one, but we had ours all go through and signed off and builder has done all the boxing etc in order for concrete to be poured first thing this morning... inspector came along at about 3.30pm yesterday and said the plastic over the shingle and under the steel reinforcing wasn't strong enough :confused: but it was all done according to consent [}:)]

End of the day big chief said it was kind of grey area now but by the time it was all sorted the concrete had been cancelled and lucky old Fonterra had filled our booking ... no chance of concrete with original company until 16 Jan, putting us a month behind schedule and losing builder because he was away on holiday!

Grrr... OH was up at 5.30am this morning ringing concrete firms and has luckily managed to get us sorted for next Wednesday :D In the meantime builder now has to lift all reinforcing, re-plastic it and relay reinforcing - all at our expense [}:)]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405519 by cj4a
hope it's not your concrete going into our place tomorrow :o we are going thru the consent process on new house but not my office except for the loo
hope your house proceeds without more hickups next year
and yes believe it's worth the hassle ,look at the year we have had in canterbury

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405520 by Shropshire Blue

highgirl;401259 wrote:

Grrr... OH was up at 5.30am this morning ringing concrete firms and has luckily managed to get us sorted for next Wednesday :D In the meantime builder now has to lift all reinforcing, re-plastic it and relay reinforcing - all at our expense [}:)]


Argh feel your pain :(:( Are you on a fixed price contract? Ask as we were and builder had to cover cost of any consent issues.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405525 by max2
I will just go over something I briefly said, that is we haven't had to give code of compliance info to any insurer. When our first house burned down, neither did we then for that, they were all about maintenance and upkeep records until the specialist report came back as to the cause...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405528 by DiDi
Apologies everyone, Haven't read all the answers but just reacting to the original question. My concern Swaggie would be that without Resourse Consent, you are leaving yourself wide open to Council demanding that those bits be removed. Someone mentioned flyovers?

Having said that, much of my property was not Consented and when it came to selling it, all was declared and the new buyers, having had a Builder through etc agreed in writing that they accepted that i.e. no come back on me.

The only other concern would be, with the Insurance industry having been hit so hard whether they will crack down on things like non consented Buildings and whether it will be used as an out.

I certainly know why you are asking the question as in the Bay of Plenty for example, I have been told that the majority of houses are not consented. I lived on my non consented property (some was) for 22 years without issue. The issue arises if anything goes wrong and then? You have been through it already with your tenants so how much in $ real terms against total loss possibly is the gamble worth?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405610 by max2
I have applied for the extensions, so just waiting to hear back. From my perspective though, if someone has done the right thing and gone through the consent process, why ''police'' it so vigourously when others are clearly abusing the rules?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405611 by DiDi
I agree with you. It has crossed my mind to wonder following the Christchurch earthquake as to whether they have looked into what is and isn't consented. I haven't read anything about it.

It annoys the hell out of me when someone who is not paying insurance has a major and every feel good person rushes in to help. No - I don't want to see people in a bad place either but why should we pay huge insurance bills and those that don't not be penalised. We are still to hear the final outcome on the uninsured properties in Christchurch?

I know me and the things that are so stupid like getting a recourse consent to replace a fireplace when the registered person doing the job is doing it totally by the rules is just money grabbing nonsense. Of course it is going to be ticked off so why did it have to cost so much to do? The insurance company will only have a problem (old info) if the fireplace is found to be the source of the fire! Go figure.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405620 by highgirl
Didi, the Chch earthquake, EQC and insurance companies is a whole different issue [}:)]

I was just around at a friends today who told me she and her husband clearly told EQC on more than one occasion that a huge crack was pre-existing but good old EQC argued it was earthquake and are repainting entire house, but they don't paint the ceiling ... other than in the kitchen where there is a tiny hairline crack. They also had a lot of pre-exisiting work to be done in the laundry that eqc are insisting is earthquake damage ... in the end they gave up and are just going to let them fix it.

I have a rental that the insurance say is $206k to fix and EQC say $16k :confused:

On the subject of consents better to be safe than sorry. I did have a property that I changed after a fire and believed builder when he said consent wasn't needed. When I went to sell it, buyers weren't comfortable and CCC would issue permit in retrospect so I had to get an engineers report for it and that is filed with the council.

cj4a - no it's the big Fonterra building in Darfield getting the concrete :( We have managed to organised new companies to do it next Wed though so at least this side of the new year :D

SB - I'm not too sure about the pricing contract for the builder, I do know he's not too happy about lifting it all again though [:0]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 6 months ago #405626 by LongRidge
As someone implied earlier, when you come to sell your building and property, most purchasers will look to see how they can pay less. If the building does not have a consent then it might have to be pulled down. So unconsented buildings should be valued at $0. If the building has a big insurance claim then I am fairly sure that the insurer will check with the council what the buildings value is. If the council has no record of the building, as in a Consent, then the money that you have been paying the insurance company for insurance might be valued at the Councils valuation of $0.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.268 seconds