Auckland Council and its lawyers denied owning the duty of care on the victims of the over height limit infringement
29 July 2021Auckland Council and its lawyers denied that Council owns the duty of care on the victims of the over height limit building infringement. So Council covered the building infringement by granting the retrospective resource consent on the small size of the infringement which revictimized the victims of the building infringement. Council did not revoke the resource consent on the building infringement after they knew that they granted the resource consent on the wrong size of the infringement.
Dr Royden Somerville QC inspected the evidences and brought these matters onto high court for the hearing on 7th Nov 2021. But Council refused to mediate with us. We had the professional assessment and report from the third party to confirm that the size of the building infringement is more than 12meters width and about 3 meters over the height limit under Resource Management Act section 10(1). The professional assessment confirms “When viewed in its entirety, it is my opinion that the increase in non-compliance causes loss of daylight and building dominance on the Li property to an extent that is more than minor.” The professional valuation report confirms that we lost 160,000.00 dollars due to the infringement. And the infringement will cost us 80000 dollars to redevelop our land. We already spent 250000 dollars on this investigation. At the moment, Council granted the retrospective resource consent on the wrong size of the building infringement(2m width and 0.22m over height limit). So the resource consent did not cover all of the building infringement. The above all are not discretionary. We request Auckland Council as local authority to revoke the building consent and the resource consent and we request Auckland Council to pay the full cost of our investigation and the legal fee back to us.
1. The duty of care: We are ratepayers and we are the victims of the building infringement made by Auckland Council and neighbors. Our property is legally granted there. So Auckland Council owns the duty of care on us when we become the victims of this over height limit infringement. Height to Boundary limit is the primary regulation which takes care of the neighbors and environment. Once we go through High Court, our case can become the new case law no matter whether the High Court agrees or denies that Auckland Council owns the duty of care on the victims of the building infringement. This judgement from the High Court could lead Council behavior to either cover the infringement badly or administrate the plan, building consent and resource consent within law.
2. The over height limit infringement and the adverse effect are not discretionary (as the above explained).Due to Council’s failures and refusals, Council assessed and granted the resource consent on the wrong size of the building infringement(2 m width and 0.22 m over height limit). But the actual size of the building infringement is more than 12m width and about 3m over height limit. Auckland Council as local authority should carry out its obligation to correct its decisions by revoking the building consent and the resource consent.
3. There are the number of errors repeated when Council dealt with this building infringement both in the law area and in the operational area. After identifying the infringement initially, Council failed to complete the resource consent(s37) before granting the building consent. Council lifted s37 particularly after we refused to sign the building plan. Council failed to apply the section10(1) of Resource Management Act on the infringement before granting the building consent. Council failed to follow its processes to request the surveying on the infringement before granting the building consent. Council failed to follow its building inspection processes to identify the infringement. Council refused to stop the building work when Council confirmed this over height limit infringement. Council failed to apply the section10(1) of RM Act on the infringement size when we requested to stop the building work. Council failed to carry out the assessment report before concluding the adverse effect as less than minor. Council refused to do the independent investigation as requested from the victims and a councilor. Council failed to visit the victims’ site to assess the adverse effect before granting the retrospective resource consent. Council failed to apply the section 10(1) of RM Act when Council assessed and granted the retrospective resource consent. Council failed to identify the issues on building drawing when Council received the retrospective resource consent application from the neighbors. Council failed to notify this infringement case to thepublic.
4 Public interest The Public would like to know if Council owns the duty of care to the victims of the building infringement which was produced by Council and the developer. The Public are interested in Council’s position and attitude on how council follows the regulations and law rather than cover the building infringement and the developer, which revictimized the victims and family permanently. If the High Court denies the duty of care, Council will stand on the developers’ ground to cover the infringement in order to avoid the court case from the developers. Council’s discretionary power should not be applied on such more than minor infringement. Council abused discretionary power based on the erroneous conclusion and assessment on the wrong size of the building infringement which came from the failures and mistakes in law and in the processes. We urge Auckland Council to take its obligations to revoke the building consent and to revoke the resource consent. We urge Auckland Council to compensate our investigation cost and legal fee. We urge Auckland Council to do the mediation with the victims and make the fair settlement before going to the hearing in high court. Our home our castle. Help us walk out of this hell permanently. Please do not let our family bear the bad consequence from others' failures and mistakes.
-
My family home is damaged by neigbour's development too, developer 's intentionally design flaw in Architectural plan to Auckland Council and Council staff's ignore the flaw to grant building consent.