Manukau's she'll be right attitude to blame

Two reports slamming Manukau City's handling of building applications reveal a council riddled with flaws in two key areas: resource consents, which deal with the type, scale and effects of development allowed under the district plan; and building consents, which relate to the standard and quality of the building itself.

The inquiries, by Audit New Zealand and management consultants MWH Ltd, paint a picture of an authority adopting a "she'll-be-right" approach to a deluge of building applications, and a pro-growth council willing to give developers and builders the benefit of the doubt.

Applications were accepted with incomplete information; plans lacked detail about slopes, earthworks and retaining walls; inspectors filed sketchy reports of site visits, and approvals of the various stages of development were often not recorded.

But as the MWH report notes: "The difficulties and issues described in this report are by no means unique to MCC. ... We suggest that if a similar review was undertaken on other territorial local authorities in New Zealand there would be building/resource consent files with similar characteristics."

The inquiries followed residents' complaints about development in new suburbs around Howick and Pakuranga. Allegations included: homes built without legal boundaries being defined and in breach of height limits; overcrowding; excavations on boundaries causing stability problems; subsidence caused by poorly built retaining walls; flooding; unauthorised building and additions which breached height limits.

The reports found building consent staff often did not draw on the expertise of the resource consents team. Staff shortages and high turnover meant six-monthly assessments were missed. A backlog of 3000 "live" consents awaited checking, Audit NZ found.

As a quality control measure, council rules required that a team co-ordinator audit every 20th consent plan.

"Unfortunately this audit is currently not being performed, nor, we understand, has it ever been performed."

Files were inconsistent and poorly maintained, with loose, out-of-order documents and unsigned, handwritten notes. Many contained information relating to a different consent.

But the most glaring deficiencies were in checks for compliance. Information in compliance manuals was minimal, team members received no formal training and were "not generally familiar with the Building Act".

Processes followed to determine compliance did not meet good practice expectations.

Inspections were often not recorded and conditions of consent not listed on files.

"We noted many instances in which building occurs despite noncompliant activities and notes are made on the file to seek the relevant supporting documentation from the owner's agent," Audit NZ found.

"Our review ... indicated that the team managed non-compliance through the relationship with the owner/developer as opposed to a tougher enforcement basis."

Audit NZ also found the council lacked policies to prevent conflicts of interest, including acceptance of hospitality and gifts.