They paid $20k, but can’t build
A Christchurch couple have spent more than $20,000 to get building consent for their retirement home, but may not be able to build anything.
Cherylan and Steve Davies bought the Southshore property about two-and-a-half years ago, and at the time there was nothing on the LIM report to say they would need resource consent to build.
They got building consent for their planned new home earlier this year, which included a Christchurch City Council building consent fee of $6384. But the consent had a clause stating that ‘‘no building work may proceed’’ because subsequent changes in the district plan meant that resource consent was also required.
A consultant planner has told the couple they have no guarantee of getting the resource consent, which could cost them thousands of dollars more.
The Davies cannot understand why no information came to light throughout the building consent process to indicate that they wouldn’t be able to build without resource consent on green zoned land that was previously built on, and is now surrounded by brand new homes, built post-earthquakes.
They question why they were charged the building consent fee, without being made aware that they would still have to get resource consent, along with the difficulty they would face in obtaining it.
The couple claim the situation could have been avoided if legislation making it easier for residents in flood-risk zones to renovate and build homes had not been removed from the district plan, as alleged by Christchurch City councillor David East.
Their proposed house has been designed by an architect and takes into account the current building code that mitigates the risk in relation to future earthquakes and potential flooding. That added significantly to the cost of the build and included substantial foundations and a floor level height above 1.8m.
‘‘We now have a building consent subject to a clause which states ‘no building work may proceed’. Although our build design is in keeping with the building code specifically for this site, we are advised that we are unable to build without a resource consent,’’ Cherylan Davies said.
They have been told by a consultant planner that it will cost $5850 to lodge an application for a resource consent and that, based on the information currently available, he considered that the resource consent would likely be refused by council,
‘‘We now have a building consent subject to a clause which states ‘no building work may proceed’.’’
and that an appeal to the environment court would also be necessary, incurring further costs, with no guarantee it would be successful.
Christchurch City Council head of resource consents John Higgins said the need for a resource consent would have been noted on the LIM if it had been obtained after 2016, when the new provisions came into effect.
He said there is also an option to obtain a Project Information Memorandum at any time from the council, which identifies any planning non-compliances. Otherwise, a development report was sent out as soon as possible following a building consent application being submitted.
There were thousands of new provisions under the new district plan and Higgins said the council encouraged anyone submitting a building consent, where they were unsure of the district plan provisions, to first obtain a Project Information Memorandum.
He said the Davies were only told of the resource consent requirement after they had paid their building consent fee because that was their first contact with the council’s consenting departments. They were informed soon after. He said the council was not in a position to advise until the building consent had been lodged, and an initial check had been completed.
The design of the Davies’ house triggered several provisions in the district plan, Higgins said, and if provisions were triggered, a resource consent was required. The property was also located in a high flood hazard management area and residential unit overlay, where new dwellings required resource consent.
Higgins said there were a considerable number of properties in the high flood hazard management area, mainly in the eastern suburbs.
New dwellings where existing use rights don’t apply – usually sites that have been vacant for more than 12 months – were subject to a more stringent set of requirements, which Higgins said are relatively new.
Higgins said the Davies would likely obtain a resource consent subject to the house being relocatable. The consent would have a 50-year expiry date, in line with the estimated sea-level rise.