[ruthyroo]

Just to follow up Moorf's post about subdivisions. I am currently working as a planner here in NZ so thought I would post some hopefully useful info for anyone planning to buy / develop. If you are looking at a property, or want to know a bit more about the planning rules and regs for the area where you are moving to, get down the local council planning office. They can provide Property Records on individual properties, which should provide a basic history of the property, checking all the building consents etc have been done correctly. Also, the District Plans will contain all the rules and regs on subdivision and other development in your area - though these can be a bit inpenetrable to anyone not used to planning jargon! But a chat to the staff might help - and be a bit more objective than estate agents!

Also, the planning system here in NZ is very very different to anything in the UK. The original low density settlement patterns were dictated largely by the availability and cheapness of land, and public health laws. Lots of the immigrants came from overcrowded, disease ridden slums back in Scotland and elsewhere - so when they got to NZ they very quickly made it a public health rule that all houses had to have a backyard of a certain size, and be a specific distance from the neighbours - must have seemed like paradise after five to a toilet in the Gorbals! So that was where the Kiwi quarter acre came from. But times have changed, cholera and dysentry are things of the past, and land prices, especially in the cities, have rocketed, and property / development seems to be the way to invest here. Virtually every kiwi I have met has at least a couple rental properties, and / or looking to buy and subdivide larger sections.

BTW subdivision basically means housing development here, whether plonking another house in your backgarden, or building 50 new houses in a field.

HTH somebody!

[Michelle and Richard]

Thats really interesting especially as we are in subdivideland, oh sorry Auckland.

One question can you tell me what the difference or advatage/disadvantage is of, for example, a zone 2 or zone 6 house. I get the impression that 6 is the max and they can bung as many houses into as small a space as possible. A zone 2 area means there has to be more space between houses and therefore better.

Any advice would be helpful as it is a complete minefield.

Michelle

[veronica]

Yep thats about right, In chch living zone one is normal residential, Living 2 means more living area to land ratio, living 3 up to 80 percent etc.

[leslie]

my architect hub is keen to work with council on planning/ development issues/ projects (even on p/t basis if need be). in other countries big councils have own architects but auckland doesn't appear to have - is everything done on a project basis or do they work together on a more consistent basis? can you recommend where to start with this?

[ruthyroo]

HI there

Not 100% sure about Auckland but going by my experience here in Roto-vegas, almost all that specialist type of work is done by consultants, usually the big national ones e.g. Opus, Sigma, Connell Wagner etc. There is far more use of consultants for this kind of specialist work here in NZ - local councils simply can't afford the specialist staff (but of course end up stumping up for big consultancy fees - but let's not get into the politics of that!!). So maybe your DH would have more luck with the consultants rather than the councils directly. HTH

[leslie]

funny- that is the impression we are getting. are you able to recommend any good consultancies (nothing like asking for the moon!). with arch practices we have found the best known are often not 'the one' (diplomacy) and the lesser known's were well worth the research...

[Danpoll]

Dear Ruthyroo,


I am stunned to hear that there is a better planning system than TCPA 1990. But surely NZ has the same procedures as that each local authroity can interperate the guidelines as they see finicially fit. a structured form of centralised town planning it could never work. Surely not.
What do they have in the way of PPG 15 & 16? of PLBCA 1990. Is it more effective than the wishy washy enforcements that we have in the UK? CPO's etc. I know that the minister for heritage and conservation is Mrs Helen Clarke PM. Is the appeals process lengthy and is the standard of town planning staff more coherant and efficent than their uk counterparts.

What about permitted development rights is planning and building control as pedantic as the uk or like most western countries a civilised and fair succeseion of straightforward and inexpesnive procedures?

Cheers

Dan

[ruthyroo]

Hi Dan am still very new at this but will try and answer your Qs...
1. Resource Management Act replaced the TCPA(NZ) in 1991. Focus is on effects-based planning i.e. in theory you can do anything you like, as long as you meet certain minimum standards. It was meant to do away with centralised type planning and yes allow local responses to local issues...until the National Party got voted in just before the bill went through, and pulled the plug on all training and capacity building for local government that was meant to be part of the parcel, and instituted a managerial approach, where LG are exepcted to recoup all costs for their services...doesn't work in practice when the voters don't want their rates to rise etc. So big implementation and resourcing problems. There is a major shortage of planners here in NZ, and all the stress that this puts on the profession and individual departments.

2. The RMA is very focused on environmental effects - that's the whole basis of planning here, combined with zoning to id appropriate land uses in the local context. Sliding scale of charges for land use permits / resource consent depending how major the impact of your proposals. At the easy end - i.e. a permitted activity, it's fairly straightfoward - but if you are trying something new, or that doesn't fit into the zone, you can pay big bucks and jump through a lot of hoops.

3. Heritage protection still in the dark ages here. Compared to the UK, there's relatively little built heritage to protect, and much of it fell by the wayside during the dreaded 60's and 70's! Only listed buildings have any formal protection. Cultural and archeological heritage focuses on maori sites - and there are a whole different range of issues with protecting them that are too long to get into here! Suffice to say, only recently did heritage become a major concern for planners.

4. The RMA has a really bad reputation among developers for being negative and restrictive about development - maybe that's a good thing if NZ wants to maintain its 'clean green' image. The appeals proceedure can only be pursued by individuals with the financial werewithal to go to court...so money speaks as always. Yet, to my eyes, the majority of proposals do go through - rightly or wrongly.

It has really made me see very clearly how young NZ is in terms of governance. They've only been at this 150 years so are still working on it!

[Danpoll]

Cheers for that Ruthyroo,

I suppose this is another example of how stooped in heritage the Uk is and how unaware we are of it.

Cheers

Dan