David Townshend won a determination with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) after disputing the rejection.
The city council said his two planned multi-dwelling buildings on Blenheim Rd, Riccarton, did not comply with fire safety regulations in the building code.
He estimates the determination process and delays on his investment have cost him about $100,000.
“This has gone on since last May and was entirely avoidable,” said Townshend.
“It’s wasted a lot of time and money.”
Head of building consenting Sanjay Dutthas said the city council will not appeal the MBIE decision.
He submitted a building consent application in May last year to construct seven units within two buildings.
The southern building has three units, one two-storey and two single-storey, “stacked” on top of each other.
The northern building has four units – two two-storey, and two single-storey units – on top of each other.
The stacked units are within 5m of the property boundary, which in the building code triggers the need for a higher fire resistance rating (FRR) on the exterior walls.
Other units only need a higher FRR if they are 1m away.
The dispute is over whether the two-storey units attached to the stacked units also need a higher FRR, as they are attached.
Townshend believed the distance requirement only applies to each unit individually.
“I’m trying to build attractive but affordable housing for tenants,” he said.
“Not having to make almost all the walls fire-resistant saves a lot of money.”
MBIE sided with Townshend and overruled the consent rejection, determining the code only applies to each unit individually rather than all attached units.
Townshend has filed a complaint with city council chief executive Mary Richardson about the process.
“I don’t want the same thing to happen to anyone else,” he said.
One of his biggest frustrations was the need to take the dispute to determination when his interpretation of the building code was correct.
“The (council) were wrong, but they were not really open to that possibility,” he said.
Dutthas said city council staff having different interpretations of the building code was reasonable.
“Without a decision from MBIE there was not sufficient clarity for the council to have reasonable grounds that the work would comply,” he said.
Townshend also believes consents staff had a lack of knowledge of the acceptable solution rules.
Dutthas defended the consents team despite the complaint, saying they are “appropriately qualified and competent”.
Townshend said the determination was an example of incorrect code interpretation by the city council.
He believes it’s indicative of other overly bureaucratic barriers he and other developers encounter when engaging with the consents unit.
“I have no doubt there are good people in there but as a customer, the experience and how much this costs should not come down to who you get on your consent.”
