Cock­eyed by­law

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION/NEWS -

Edi­tor,

I read with in­ter­est David Rolfe’s disin­gen­u­ous re­ply to Al­lan Bloomfield’s letter in this week’s Kapi-Mana News [Feb 1].

A quick look at the rel­e­vant by­law con­firms that Al­lan, as the owner of a prop­erty with a sep­tic tank, is re­quired to ob­tain a li­cence, de­spite the fact that coun­cil orig­i­nally per­mit­ted the sep­tic tank un­der the orig­i­nal build­ing con­sent, which would have been for the ex­pected life of the build­ing (un­der the rel­e­vant act this should have been 50 years).

The li­cence will not be is­sued un­til an au­tho­rised per­son has given a cer­tifi­cate of fit­ness. The coun­cil will charge the owner $90 (at present) and may choose to is­sue the li­cence for only three years. The au­tho­rised per­son will charge what s/he can get away with – po­ten­tially the $1000 quoted by Al­lan in his letter.

For David Rolfe to sug­gest that Al­lan is con­fused about the costs, and of­fer no fac­tual cor­rec­tion, is not the stan­dard ratepay­ers should ex­pect from their em­ploy­ees.

As an aside, it is quite clear that nei­ther salaried nor elected ser­vants proof­read the by­law ad­e­quately – Part 18.1.2 is an ex­act re­peat of the fi­nal part of 18.1.1. Part 17.4.1 doesn’t make sense. What else is cock­eyed with the by­law? Brian Collins,

Pa­pakowhai many years. This is iconic Kiwi in­ge­nu­ity right here.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.