The story goes like this: Rob bought
the existing 60 year old bank to convert into a
café. He would reasonably assume that consent would be forth coming for such a benign
activity as a café, until the eagle
eyed council staff noticed that the
bank didn’t have a veranda. Now given the
fact that the bank’s veranda hadn’t ever
existed for 60 years with any difficulty it is not unreasonable to assume that the next 60 years would afford something similar.
Fur ther – should an earthquake occur
in Lumsden, the place to be would be
under the non existent veranda so
that if it fell on you; you would not notice and certainly not be harmed.
is a number of precedents here dear readers for such exceptional policies.
we farmers were paid not to grow crops. I naturally enough would have not grown
a maize crop which is very expensive to grow so that UK the
payments would have been much bigger than a payment to a fellow farmer not to
grow a crop of oats which is less expensive to grow. Very soon all farmers worked
out they were far better off being
paid not to grow a crop of expensive maize.
I also would not have had to apply lots of NPK fertilizer so my expenses associated in not growing
crop of maize were huge. Add to that the
cost of not spraying the maize and
not to mention the harvesting costs,
I could afford to buy a large and lovely villa in the
South of France on the cheques from the Ministry. To my great surprise and delight I
also received a environmental award for conserving the
world precious resources in not growing this crop. Outstanding. In fact so
outstanding was this policy I assume that the
policy was thought of by the Green
Party in the , or at least
UK the US Federal Reserve.
Here in NZ we follow very similar policies. We pay people not to work. In fact
less they work the more we pay them
which is of course very similar to paying farmers not to grow stuff or charging
for not building a veranda.
Now our hero of
story (Rob) paid the council $675
and wanted a full refund for not building a veranda
He got $255 back along with some expressions of sympathy for his plight.
Not one council committee member voted to return his full processing fee of $675.
old saying about heading to hell in a hand cart. Bill English lives just down the road at Dipton – or at least he did. Nice part
of the world!
Is the full story being told here?
Surely the "consent fee" of $675 was for the council's investigation and consent approval to establish a cafe in the bank building.
As part of the council's investigation it was pointed out that the building did not have a veranda. Apparently this did not prevent the consent being granted?
Why was there a need to refund anything to the applicant?
about RMA, and socialising the economy
Yes indeed Gerry. When we discovered that old yellow tooth announced himself as the RMA
him socialist palmer was the most destructive politician in all time, prime minister for a week,
a deadly force against the progress our Country New Zealand
Then the NZ Nat party with Simon Upton enacted this socialism.
I soon found out that I could not even open a Veterinary Clinic in Christchurch without enormous and absurd barriers.
But the RMA it worked for me once, I was able to lock out a Veterinary Competitor
My life force was encumbered though by all sorts of Council idiots.
RMA has been wrecking us through the eighties to even now as in your example.
I do not know who would be Council over Lumsden, but it is almost unbelievable any Council would turn down an application for
normal commercial activity without difficulty..
If think if I were the friend in Lumsden,
I would build them their verandah and then see if I could get be elected to Council.
So why DID the council refund any money at all? It is an admission they screwed up.
If one digs enough, one can find all sorts of storiers about the use of the RMA, as paul said it can be and does get used to stop competition. A case in point, on the west coast a builder subdivided some land, the owner of a large chain of hotels objected to the extent that the builder had to fork out 460K to another set of legal thieves to support his case. At the preliminary hearings the wife in the objecting party freely admitted they were objecting because a hotel could be built opposite thiers. Problem with that statement is it is not admissable in the actual court hearings, so the court never gets to hear the RMA is used to choke competition. Of course when the court heard the case the objectors never showed up, so one can only assume the objectors had only one objective and that was to financially ruin the developer. The irony of this is one of the directors was pictured standing with the Govenor general getting his NZ Order of Merit bestowed on him, what kind of a chicken poop outfit is this Gov't we got?
Post a Comment