Ciaran Keogh said dealing with the council over a consent to build a home on the coastal property he owns with his wife, Jill Corson, in Moeraki had been an absolute nightmare.
The couple applied for a consent in October last year. What should have taken six to eight weeks had taken almost a year and cost much more than it should have, Mr Keogh said.
"We’ve just had an absolute runaround," Mr Keogh said.
He described an instance of a consultant copying and pasting a consent from the Upper Clutha, making reference to the river landscape and a kanuka forest surrounding the house.
The couple was asked to complete a geotechnical assessment, despite an existing report on the council’s website stating that a geotechnical report was not necessary until building took place, and was asked to complete a contamination assessment, despite the property having never been built on.
Halfway through the process, the couple and their neighbours agreed to a boundary adjustment, and the consultant asked them to start the consent process again.
They had affected party consent from all of their neighbours, including the Te Runanga o Moeraki, which was particularly important given the land’s history, Mr Keogh said.
"There are a set of landscape guidelines that we wholeheartedly support, and we designed with those in mind."
These included a requirement for him to complete native planting, which he had already started and planned to cover 50% of the property.
"We are dead keen on doing it right."
Mr Keogh, who was previously a chief executive of the Clutha District Council, claimed the council had spent $40,000 in the process, and believed that money could be better spent on eradicating the noxious plants spreading along the coast and Moeraki’s rabbit infestation.
Mr Keogh was recently granted consent but was told he could not build for three years unless he paid a $10,000 bond on top of his $15,000 consent.
"What they are going to grant is just about exactly what we asked for in the first place, so it’s not as if the process has come to a conclusion that modifies what we are going to do.
"We paid for this and we got no recourse for poor performance."
In January, Mr Keogh was offered the opportunity of a second opinion on the landscaping proposal, but declined because he felt both parties had come to an agreement.
Instead, the situation worsened and he regretted not taking the opportunity.
Waitaki District Council acting heritage, environment and regulatory group manager Roger Cook said in most cases the consent process was reasonably straightforward, but Mr Keogh’s application was complex.
His proposed development was within the scenic coastal landscape overlay, subjecting it to national, regional, and local planning policies that were aimed at protecting the environment, Mr Cook said. In addition, the proposal was for a subdivision that was under the size prescribed by policy, so was publicly notifiable.
"We need to be conscious that whatever development is agreed here will have an impact on this environment for decades. In addition, the proposal was for a subdivision that is under the size prescribed by policy."
As a result, the process was significantly more costly than a standard consent, he said.
"We believe it is only fair that the cost falls on the applicant rather than taxpayers."
Mr Cook admitted there were "some things" the council did not get right in the process, but said they were rectified and there was no cost to Mr Keogh for the errors.
