Last week I. Stevenson wrote about Baypark Speedway having numerous items without building consent and/or codes of compliance certificates prior to Council purchasing the complex.
Tauranga City Council blandly replied 'all necessary building consents were obtained before the deal was finalised”.
The question remains. Why were all the necessary building consents and certificates not obtained in the first place during construction of the building?
Undeniably the building was being used unlawfully prior to the Council finalising the deal. What action did they take against the owner when they discovered the failures to comply with s.363 of the Building Act 2004?
Perry Harlen, Mount Maunganui.
Posted: 01:23pm Thu 21 Apr, 2011
Consent repercussions
13-Nov 18:00
Weekend could see temperatures hit 30C
13-Nov 17:00
Te Puke man turns 60km goal into 600km
13-Nov 15:41
Microsoft outage affect users worldwide
13-Nov 14:00
Pōwhiri to bring cultures together in Tauranga
13-Nov 13:20
‘Kiwi hot’ at Bay Oval
13-Nov 11:45
Don't wash raw chicken, food safety officials warn
13-Nov 11:07
Cast your line for Coastguard
13-Nov 10:02
Delivery truck stolen from BOP dairy, man charged
13-Nov 08:30
Sunny weekend as high pressure settles in
13-Nov 06:00
Police issue 29 tickets in mobile phone crackdown
12-Nov 21:16
One dead after vehicle crashes down bank
12-Nov 18:00
New men's fund launched to tackle isolation in BOP
COMPETITIONS
11 comments
NOTHING ..........
Posted on 21-04-2011 21:51 | By THE PELICAN BRIEF
becaue they are maty mate ...
a very dangerous precedent
Posted on 23-04-2011 08:57 | By MINDER
The Building Act is quite specific about the requirements to be met for any places of public gatherings.Any breaches then just prosecute all those involved and let them meet the substantial fines for any breaches.
CODE OF COMPLIANCE
Posted on 23-04-2011 09:02 | By YOGI BEAR
How can this be? No one is allowed to use a property without a code of compliance in place? that is breaking the law.
COUNCIL 'RULES'
Posted on 24-04-2011 10:23 | By BUSH WACKER
This is clearly a double standard, Council are looking over Council facilities and ticking all the boxes many years after the event, like how can this be?
OVERDUE PROSECUTIONS
Posted on 24-04-2011 20:44 | By TERMINATOR
It is clear that Baypark is a "Public use" facility as the Building Act 2004 interpretes. That means that there must be a Code of Compliance in place that is correctly and properly issued to the owner. It is clear from the reports that at best that this has not happened for some seven years or so and that if they were issued pre settlement by TCVL (money from TCC ratepayers) that due process has not been observed between 2001 and 2007, that is an offence under the Act.
TERMINATOR ONTO THE PERPETRATORS
Posted on 25-04-2011 10:58 | By YABBA DABBA DO
I looked at the Act, it says a fine of up to $200,000 and up to $20,000 a day for "each offense" for seven years. That potentially adds up to a big amount $200,000 plus about $7.3m a year for each code of compliance not issued. in seven years that is $513m maximum. I think I have found a way to clear all the TCC debt then have some rate reductions instead of massive increases. When do they pay?
broomsticks & magic carpets
Posted on 26-04-2011 07:39 | By EYESPY
Looks like total fines are right in theory problem could be recovering it from the miscreants.Certainly would pay off TCC capital debt of $400m but could be a worry with the balance woulnt they spend it on ice skating rinks, monkey zoos, Taj Mahal museums, polo grounds and velodromes.Some enlightened souls no doubt see these as essential must haves so our everyday world doesn't fall apart and we are plunged into a state of manic depression or despair
@ EYESPY
Posted on 26-04-2011 09:24 | By WARTS N ALL
You would be right, a slight hint of $$$ in would create a massive spending spree like none before. What you have listed would be it a massive blow out of meaningless monuments ...
Time to Rectify prior to fines
Posted on 26-04-2011 10:03 | By Ngaere
I would hope the council is compassionate enough (as was the case in this instance) to allow time to rectify compliance issues prior to fining.
@ NGAERE
Posted on 26-04-2011 16:11 | By SLIPPERY SALAMI
Is seven years enough time ? Actually the law says that you can not open the place until you have a code of compliance, simple.
PAY THE FINES YOU LOT!
Posted on 28-04-2011 17:02 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Love that, that has to be the truth and some, what a joke, many a person around the place has been badgered by 'legal due process' from the ratepayers cheque book, often under dubious circumstances yet in the midst of the 'Lord and Master' caverns at TCC lies a heap of DIRTY LINEN, so what else lies within the hovel and that will sneak out in the near future.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.