Were the scaff regs really H&S though? Recommend a glance at Bryce Wilkinson's scaff paper A Matter of Balance. A few years old but still good. Easy to find on NZ Initiatives site.
Printable View
Not intentionally.
As I understand it, if you alter the roof line in any way or change to a different type of roofing material, it involves going through the RMA process.
Slightly altering the width of a dormer window with it just slightly infringing on height to boundary ratio, cost some friends over $100,000 going through the whole long RMA process, and in the end it was passed anyway, so what's the point apart from keeping a whole army of paper pushing compliance people something to do between 9a and 5p. (said slightly tongue in cheek)
You are probably right - but maybe a bit high on the 20K but the catalyst for all this health and safety was Pike River and is was National that wound down the inspectorate so badly and it was National that crushed the unions and yet over looked is the fact that unions were big on health and safety - so you join the dots...
Some district plans do note roof form, materials and even colour. Attempting to vary these can result in a council imposed requirement to obtain a resource consent. Roof colour has been an objection raised by councils in the Wellington region of late.
I would but the the dots don't link up. If what the Nats did was so terrible, why didn't Aunty Helen fix it during her 9 years?
We have tended to follow the UK on this H&S and RMA stuff as far as I can make out.
Regardless, it doesn't diminish the fact that idiot savant Geof Palmer lumbered us with the RMA in all it's consulting, mitigating glory. Palmer is unrivalled in the intelligent fool category.
Andrew Little probably surpasses him in the fool category, but he's just a plain old idiot. I shudder to think what legacy Little will leave us with if he gets a second term as Justice Minister. He might even get lumbered with Cindy's Ihumatao cockup to sort out as well.