RUBY NYIKA
Last Updated 14:24, 8 July 2018
CHRISTEL YARDLEY / STUFF
The owners affected are, from left to right, Cara Watson, Jasmine Crosbie with Mason Parsons, 18 months, and her partner Joshua Parsons, Phill Crosbie, Paige Collins and Lynne Collins.
Landlords were asked to shell out thousands to obtain retrospective resource consents after what they say is a council yawn.
The Waikato District Council warned four Pokeno landowners that they are too close to a global mining area and must apply for resource approvals before their homes can be declared. legal.
Despite the fact that the four houses got the full construction agreement and the final certificate of conformity when they were built less than two years ago.
And although the council said to the four […] ", that means that houses can not be easily sold because there is a cloud over titles.
READ MORE:
] * Illegal construction work costs the owners millions
* Comment: Obtaining the consent of the building
* The Wanaka building consents the boom
* How to: Obtain the consent of the resources
The Council had no problem two years ago when its own building was built, said Joshua Parsons, owner of one of the four affected homes and spokesmen for the four.
should pay money for board mistake.
This was a classic case of big guys trying to bully the little guys, said Parsons, who hired a lawyer and filed an official complaint against the council.
Poken o, once a sleepy hamlet nestled between Waikato and Auckland, has become a sprawling city with new buildings and businesses.
When Parsons obtained consent for the subdivision of family lands in 2015, the extraction area was not used. It was used as farmland.
He was informed by the surveyors at the time of the area of extraction, but they said that no signature of the owner of the adjacent lands would be necessary.
"The Council agrees with that, there was no activity, so no further action was necessary," Parsons said. "We did sign, paid [Waikato District Council] the $ 17,000 in administration and contribution fees."
Two year advance and McWatt Group Ltd purchased the surrounding land and applied for a land use permit for a clean site for filling and crushing concrete. This consent has not yet been formally granted.
Nine months after the application, the council notified the four owners of the alleged violation, Parsons said.
"[Council] I sent a letter by email and it was as if we were blamed, saying that you had never received the signature of this mining company. . "
Parsons realized that each retrospective waiver could cost more than $ 5,000.
"I was very clear from the start that we should not have to pay a cent of our pocket."
But there is a bigger problem: questionable consent devalues properties, said Parsons.
He had tried to sell his property, but he had to remove it from the market.
"This is a board that has reneged on its code of compliance and construction consent that they have given us, so any lawyer will tell you that this property carries a bit of risk."
And few people will buy the house with the opportunity to build a noisy and dusty installation here a few years, he said.
It's been an anxious year for all concerned families, said Parsons. He caused his own wife, pregnant with their third child, a lot of anxiety.
"[Council] does not understand the stress that he caused."
Waikato District Council was contacted for an interview and sent a written statement instead.
He stated that the "rule violated" could be changed during the next revision of the district plan.
"We advised the affected landowners that the council is not proposing to take enforcement action or compel them to do anything about the non-compliance because the landlords could not do anything about it. consent, the Council informed the owners that he would waive the filing and processing fees associated with such a request.
"The Board recognizes that this has been stressful for the four affected property owners and that it took a long time to finish, and we apologize to the owners. "
Cathy McWatt, co-owner of McWatt Group Ltd, said the land was currently used as farmland and that no official decision was made. Had been made as to the use that would have been made of it.
Letters were sent to the properties concerned, informing them of the plans of the companion ie, she said.
She understood that houses had been built in areas of extraction whereas they should not have been.
As far as McWatt is aware, the owners' complaints related to the board's processes and the company left them to denounce them.
– References
[ad_2]
Source link