Wgtn. Crs. Vote In Error To Ramp Up Building Fees

Click for big version

WELLINGTON city councillors unwittingly rubber-stamped a massive increase to most building consent fees after staff gave them the wrong document at a meeting last month.

Some fees have more than doubled to $600-plus, on a schedule the council passed by mistake.

Councillors were approving a charge on all applicants for information-gathering costs – despite the Building Act being amended to make this voluntary.

Warrick Quinn, CEO of the Registered Master Builders Federation, is fuming about the compulsory nature of the charges but no-one noticed a new fee structure had been approved at the same time.

It was only when NewsWire asked about the substantial hikes in fees and inconsistencies in a February 24 report to the full Wellington City Council that group manager, building consents and licensing services, John Scott became aware of the error.

He says: “We have attached something that we want approved [further down the track] to something that has been approved.”

He is investigating how to rectify the blunder.

Project information memorandums (PIMs) have been required for all consent applications until changes to the Building Act 2004 made them voluntary in February. But the council says it must still go through all the PIM processes and doesn’t want to get caught with the bill.

Otherwise lost revenue would reach up to $550,000 a year, according to a report to the meeting. It refers to other councils also passing on the charges.

Mr Quinn says Parliament changed the law to lower costs for builders/homeowners and cut unnecessary red tape. For the council to apply any increase undermines the intent of the Building Act amendments, he says.

Registered Master Builders say PIMs aren’t always necessary: “By making it voluntary the builder/homeowner would save money and bring compliance costs down.

“If councils have increased building consent fees to recoup the income they have lost due to PIMs becoming optional, then that is unjustified and appalling behaviour.”

John Scott says there is probably the perception that PIMs are pointless but the background information is still considered essential by the council.

The risk of not obtaining a PIM falls on the builder or home-owner rather than the council but, he says, the council doesn’t want people living in unsafe or unsanitary conditions.

Councillor Andy Foster is right behind recouping the costs. He says it’s up to builders to fund their own projects, not the ratepayer.

Information required for a PIM includes:

• identifying special features of the land


• details of existing stormwater or wastewater systems on the site


• the heritage status of buildings.

ENDS

© Scoop Media