The National Party have announced that if they’re re-elected they’ll form a taskforce to tackle loopy rules and regulations.
Local Government Minister Paula Bennett today announced the establishment of a new Taskforce to rid New Zealand of loopy rules and regulations.
“The Rules Reduction Taskforce in partnership with local government will work closely with the public to weed out pedantic and unnecessary rules that frustrate property owners and councils alike.
“We’ve seen rules and regulations brought in over decades that were well intentioned but end up being confusing, onerous and costly while failing to deliver any real benefit for the property owner or the wider public,” says Mrs Bennett.
The Taskforce will be up and running in October. As well as central and local government experts, it will include specialists from the building and trades sector.
“Anyone doing building work knows just how frustrating and costly the bureaucracy can get. We want to hear from property owners, builders, tradespeople and businesses on rules and regulations that are crying out for sensible change.
“There will be a website where people can send us examples of loopy rules and the Taskforce will hear submissions from the public on areas ripe for change.
“We have rules dictating all sorts of weird and wonderful things from signage over cake stalls to where your shower curtains need to be positioned.
“In another example, a property owner trying to replace a 130 year old fence discovered some of it was on a scenic reserve and they faced having to buy or lease the land.
“While there’s always a degree of rationale behind these rules, the Taskforce will be charged with identifying what should stay and what should go so people can get on with the job of building, renovating or event planning without have to wade through a morass of unnecessary rules,” says Mrs Bennett.
Fantastic, how about they start with some that will have the most impact. That would mean starting with
- Minimum Parking Requirements
- Minimum Lot Sizes
- Minimum Dwelling Sizes
- Minimum Bedroom sizes
- Minimum Setbacks
- Restrictive Height Limits
- Blanket heritage protection for everything old
- Minimum Rear Yard Sizes
- Minimum numbers and size of tress per site
Of course during the debate on the Unitary Plan National Party MPs and aligned councillors fought hard to not only keep these loopy rules and regulations but in many cases to make t hem worse.
Processing...
Why should a ‘property owner’ be given rights to replace a fence on land that he/she doesn’t own?
Because not being able to exclude others from land you don’t own is bureaucracy gone mad, apparently.
Well, according to the Treaty of Waitangi, traditional historic use would be the answer
But only if you’re Maori
Say, my family has been here for 170 years, do I get to be counted as a native yet?
But what they are really saying is that changes in the measurement standards and reference points have resulted in a disagreement between historic and current boundary determinations.
“But what they are really saying is that changes in the measurement standards and reference points have resulted in a disagreement between historic and current boundary determinations.”
So having boundary determinations surveyed to modern standards is a “loopy rule”?
Forgot to say: Devil’s Advocate
I’m quite prepared to argue any side of this
No, I’m saying the problem arises from a CHANGE in standards.
According to the original measurements there may or may not have been a problem.
Given that no one noticed for 130 years, I find it doubtful that the problem is significant.
But if I was the property owner I might be upset to find I had to pay $5,000 a year lease to replace my fence in situ, or $50,000 to buy the land for it when it’s (as an example) 30 feet long and 8 inches wide.
And I don’t think those figures are unreasonable. I know that houses around Cornwall park have land leases in excess of $45,000 per year, and I know of a title case where it cost a new owner $50,000 to buy the land along their driveway for the width of their fence from their neighbour because it had been constructed in the wrong place 30 years earlier.
Given that you’re replacing the fence anyway, the obvious solution is – replace it on the actual boundary. No need to buy anything.
“And I don’t think those figures are unreasonable. I know that houses around Cornwall park have land leases in excess of $45,000 per year, and I know of a title case where it cost a new owner $50,000 to buy the land along their driveway for the width of their fence from their neighbour because it had been constructed in the wrong place 30 years earlier.”
Which is exactly how it should be – either build it according to the current boundary or pay for the land being acquired. The problem isn’t the law, but the incorrect location of the fence in the first place. I’m pretty sure the neighbour would have been thoroughly pissed if they realised they were losing ownership of what is actually their land because the government suddenly passed a law that “all boundaries are hereby determined by the historical location of fences, regardless of the actual boundary locations”.
Yes.
Except that, without title insurance, you have no recourse to the fact that you have purchased something in good faith that is not as described.
Similar in kind, but not in degree to buying mouldy bread, or a house where the previous owner failed to disclose was subsiding.
I agree that as an example of “loopy” it’s not a good one.
But I can also see why the owner was upset.
Actually, two words to handle this case:
“Title Insurance”
> There will be a website where people can send us examples of loopy rules and the Taskforce will hear submissions from the public on areas ripe for change
Well, this will be fun (if a total waste of everyone’s time).
How long after the website opens will it take for someone to suggest that cannabis being illegal is a “loopy regulation”? I’d say less than 2 minutes.
Well it is a loopy regulation to be fair.
How about the Auckland anti prostitute law that means it’s illegal to have sex other than in the missionary position here?
Or the one about your car having to be preceded by a 150 yards by a man carrying a white flag?
[citations needed], as they say.
Yeah, there used to be a website with lists of them, but I can’t find it anymore.
I think they cleaned a bunch of them up with the super city review anyway.
Conversely, can I make the suggestion that it’s loopy for alcohol to be legal?
+1
Suggest away! I’m hoping this becomes our equivalent of Obama’s White House petition system – a venue for serious complaints and far-out crankery alike. Apparently it’ll be running in October, i.e. shortly after the election.
There’s no limit on loopiness, lunacy and lunatics who design roads.
As Monty Python have hit the road again, perhaps they can hold a Spanish Inquisition?
Loopy 1. Why does the council have a fascination with approving that housing is sound and that if a developer wishes to move a bathroom, the lavatory is correctly aligned?
I understand this problem worsened when people built housing which leaked.
Might I humbly suggest that all responsibility be sat with said builder in the future, and that they collectively register and pay dues to an organisation which covers any faulty building ( which may also leak). Insurance schemes, largely they seem to work.
Delegate responsibility to the designers and constructors, leave the council to sort out the sewerage problems in the Waitemata and as for toilets, bog off.
Hmm. “available attention”
That is, it requires too much time and attention for all the builders to become experts in all the aspects of construction design and evaluation.
Hence why you have laws that “should” have been generated by people who have devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to all these things in order to distil it down into a single reference that the builders can use.
And not all liability rests with the builder.
Designer, builder, supplier, transporter, inventor all potentially can be responsible for things failing.
Heaven help us, she’s stuffed up social security now she’s turned her limited attention span to local government. Run for cover! Or Melbourne.
So what’s Paula trying to distract attention from today? I guess this is the latest version of National party benebashing. Mind you, you’d thing they’d have learned a thing from the last time they indulged in a bonfire of regulations, leaky buildings and all that, before they indulged in an electoral stunt like this.
Maybe insurance in case media ask more questions about Hauiti rather than doing as they’re told and moving along now.
Come on guys what are you worrying about .or don’t you like change ..I am sorry but there are a number of areas which the public need to have a say .or is that again something that will be taken away ..its time for change and give the people of nz a say
“We have rules dictating all sorts of weird and wonderful things from signage over cake stalls to where your shower curtains need to be positioned.
Do we?
And if we do have rules about shower curtains in homes, perhaps they’re about preventing falls – which are one of the leading causes of household injury and death. I couldn’t serve hot food at a recent stall I ran at market, because there are rules which are designed to prevent food poisoning which I was not able to comply with (the food was incidental to the purpose of the stall).
Hearing only from the people who build houses means cutting out the people who are affected or who have specialist knowledge, and who may have been the source of particular rules in the first place.
George , was that a joke about shower curtains? if so, may I use it?
In other news, scientists have discovered that the leading cause of death, is living.
No joke, mundane things like slipping in the shower due to bad bathroom design are a far more common and dangerous that you might think.
Falls are the leading cause of injury hospitalisation, and one of the top three leading causes of injury-related death in New Zealand.
http://www.acc.co.nz/preventing-injuries/injury-prevention-strategies/PI00132
Yeah, so something like a rule about shower curtains (or whatever strawman regulation the Minister chooses to savage) might seem silly at first glance, and may indeed have a serious and justifiable reason behind it. Which is why asking a builder or property developer which rules he or she thinks should go is not a replacement for a complete policy process.
They’ve really lost the plot haven’t they. This just sounds like more attempts to destroy local government which has been one of the loudest critics of National’s anti-urban policies. It also sounds like a resurrection of Don Brash’s anti-PC commission that IIRC Brownlee or someone was in charge of. How soon before Kangaroo courts are set up because clearly all those idiot judges are out of control too.
No, its not about losing the plot, its about distraction and winning the political “sound-bite” war for the day. In the case of Labour, it was the $200 million regional development package that was competing against the “Loopy Rules Campaign” for airtime. I actually think that today’s political showtime could really advantage the Greens.
This is a very clever post that Matt L has devised, and I’m hoping the Greens are watching closely and will be ready to propose their own set of loopy rules to be ditched tomorrow based on Matt L’s ideas. Given that this is a government initiative a would hope that politicians like Maurice Williamson, Gerry Brownlee and John Key will solemnly agree to Matt L’s suggestions when prompted by the Greens (and I’m sure there will be other suitable National MPs to bring into line on this). Matt L’s loopy rule changes will naturally make more sustainable urban living much more achieveable and bring that CRL, and potential urban public transport initiatives in Christchurch to fruition sooner 🙂
Mining inspectors, who needs em..
How about the rule that Councils make you get new certificate of title before they accept a building consent application. They are the Council and have a perfectly good rates roll they can look up. For that matter why does a building consent application even need proof of ownership, they are not certifying a legal authority to enter a property and build or demolish, just an certificate that says it complies with the building act if you do.
Loopy Rule No1: “Wellington must have a Basin Reserve Flyover”
Well the Board of Inquiry have just canned it. YAY for common sense!.
Now for Loopy Rule No2
Wow! And here’s me thinking this blog was non-partisan. Silly me. And I also initially thought Matt’s list at the end of the post was genuine, but maybe it was sarcasm. Sorry, too subtle for me.
And BTW, I also have reservations about whether this process will be effective, but let’s give it a shot. A small example of nit-picking by council: I built a concrete patio with thickening required to support cantilevered stairs. This thickening was clearly shown and dimensioned in the detailed cross-section, but I omitted putting a dotted line on the plan view to represent the change of depth. Endless time-wasting argument about nothing. And don’t get me started on bridging sewers. Then when I’d finished the job my engineer provided a hand-written, fully compliant, producer statement. “It must be presented on council’s form.” “Where does the legislation say that?” “I’ll ask my supervisor …. oh, OK, your CCC is on its way”. Sure, these were incompetent individual staff members with a bad attitude, but anyone in business knows that the rot starts at the top. Unnecessary rules and regulations simply enable this behaviour.
No it’s a genuine list I just find it hypocritical when parties say they want to cut red tape and leave it to the market to decide but then do something completely different – ideology when it suits them. I actually have no issue with the government wanting to ensure there aren’t silly rules around but most of them are not likely to be a priority or affect that many people – especially compared to my list.
I also find it funny that one of the examples they raise is someone who wants to rebuild a fence that effectively privatises public space. Sure it may have been there for 130 years but that still doesn’t make it right. If the process is driven by facts and not ideology than I’d be happy.
Not the best example … a private structure had illegally occupied a public reserve for 130 years and someone was stunned he couldn’t carry on that occupation …
jonno1, I feel your pain with your example. Glad you fought back against those bureaucrats.
And I agree that crowd-sourcing is a great fount of ideas – look at this blog for example 🙂
However, the fact stands that this Government has had six years to do something about ‘loopy rules’. It has done no such thing, nor has it taken any serious crowd-sourcing initiatives. The only possible conclusion is that this is an election period distraction.
Seems about as pointless as this was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cones_Hotline
I agree with the sentiment of this post with the exception of “Minimum Dwelling Sizes” and “Minimum Bedroom Sizes” being loopholes that need closing. Is there a good argument for this other than increasing density and letting demand dictate size? It seems that people assume (a) wanting somewhere to live is a perfectly elastic demand and (b) bad apartment buildings can easily be torn down if there is no demand for them?! Our apartment stock is very unappealing compared to countries with established apartment cultures. They are small with low ceilings, poor acoustic design and made from tawdry materials because of past relaxed regulations (size requirements were only upped in the last five years) and a now-ingrained culture of relinquishment. Some will become slums. Under 35s like myself say we would be happy to live in apartments, but in our mind have the US/European high-ceiling-wooden-floor-wide-casement-windows apartment building as our minimum standard. There aren’t many of these in Auckland because we stopped building them decades ago.
“Our apartment stock is very unappealing compared to countries with established apartment cultures” – Where have you live in apartments in Europe? I have lived in maybe 10 apartments in France, Czech Republic and Romania. They all varied in size and quality.
Some of the studios were tiny. My apartment in France was in the attic of a 15th century house. It was freezing cold, tiny and I couldn’t stand upright in the “American kitchen”.
Then again the apartment I lived in in a panelak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel%C3%A1k) in Prague was great. Even though it was built by the “evil Communists” it was one of the more practical and roomy ones I have lived in.
Apartments are determined by design not size. Why have a minimum size rather than minimum design standards? Some of these micro apartments look awesome:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcellefischler/2013/03/17/8-amazingly-tiny-micro-apartments/
I’d love some minimum design standards. You’re right that size isn’t the key variable.
There’s a couple of practical/salient points to always keep in mind when talking about minimum bedroom/dwelling sizes:
1. Minimum apartment and bedroom sizes are already specified in national building codes. In this context the relevant question is should Council’s be able to specify more stringent standards over an above what is required nationally? I don’t think they should; either there’s a minimum bedroom/dwelling size that applies nationally or not at all. It shouldn’t vary by area; that’s likely to result in social segregation.
2. The explosion in small cheap apartments in Auckland coincided with a surge in tertiary international students. Now that market has reverted to more organic growth levels a much wider diversity of apartments are being constructed. I think the market is correcting itself. And to be fair, students value cheap, proximate accommodation so I’m not sure regulating against on the grounds it’s “not good enough for me” is a good argument.
3. People who argue for regulations on bedroom/dwelling size always point to the health benefits of larger dwellings. There is very little to no evidence to support this contention; overall design is far more important (which is more difficult to regulate for). Advocates of regulations also tend to ignore:
A) what people will do in the absence of small bedrooms/dwellings (i.e. if the latter are regulated off the market). The answer is they tend to stay at home for longer, sleep inn vans on the street, and/or share rooms with strangers. None of which are particularly “healthy” in my opinion.
B) the negative health effects of higher housing costs, which naturally follow from such regulations. Basically, if you regulate small bedrooms/dwellings out of the market, then you make housing more expensive. In doing so, you can expect people to have to work harder and have less to spend, i.e. it will have negative health effects.
What more argument do you need?
When I was looking for an apartment my flatmate refused to live in anything small, so we kept looking until we found something large enoough. Apartment size and bedroom size, provision of balconies etc are all things that the buyer can assess on inspection and are best handled by the market. Things such as insulation, timber quality, waterproofing are things that cannot be assessed by a buyer and are therefore best to be regulated.
We have the huge luxury of needing to house a million people this indicates that many thousands of apartments need to be built and that developers will produce apartments to maximise profit, which will be higher quality to maximise value of the very expensive land they are using.
Come on now – you know that “the market” can only be trusted when it has been properly distorted by loopy rules to ensure that only single level, large lot houses are to be built on the fringes of the city.
Anything else is…Socialism! *collective gasp from readers*
But not providing carparks, that’s good old american freedom.
“Things such as insulation, timber quality, waterproofing are things that cannot be assessed by a buyer”
Exactly what regulation should be about.
Anything where the facts are difficult or impossible to assess after the fact (i.e. post construction), or where the typical person will lack either the necessary knowledge to judge, or the necessary resources / awareness to make use of someone who does.
And we (humans) are very, very bad at making decisions predicated on rare events
e.g. http://www.psyfitec.com/2012/12/experience-rare-events-and-risky-choice.html