Latest News

Limited Titles

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:13:00 GMT

Background

Some titles have the wording “Limited as to Parcels” appearing underneath the title heading. This does not mean that the title is defective. It does mean that the area and boundaries of the land are not guaranteed.

It was not always a requirement that land had to be surveyed as part of the subdivision process. Although not common, this practice was still used as late as the 1960’s before legislation made it compulsory that all subdivisions had to be surveyed.

Implications

What does it mean in practical terms to the land owner or developer when their title is limited as to parcels?

The actual area and boundaries of the site may be different from that on the title.
As the property was never surveyed, the Survey Act and Rules prohibit a redefinition survey, i.e. should a person need to know where their boundaries are, a land surveyor is not allowed to peg the site. A survey has to be undertaken to remove the limitations and a guaranteed title issued. As part of this procedure the boundaries will be pegged.
Some Councils will not accept resource consent applications for development where the title is limited as to parcels. This is particularly prevalent for commercial sites where development occurs either on or very close to the boundaries.

Removal of limitations survey

A surveyor generally follows the same procedures for a removal of limitation survey as for a normal subdivision. More attention is given to occupation, particularly fences, walls or other structures older than 30 years that may be evidence of a boundary position.

A normal land transfer plan is prepared, approved by LINZ and lodged with the District Land Registrar for registration. Prior to registration, the consent of adjoining owners must be obtained. It may be that an adjoining land owner disputes the position of the boundary. There are two ways of obtaining consent from adjoining owners:-

The surveyor prepares a copy of the survey plan with the names of the registered owners of adjoining properties thereon. The surveyor or owner can then call on the adjoining owners in person and request them to sign the plan. This way can be quick should all adjoining owners agree. The downside of this way is that people will not sign for frivolous reasons that bear no relation to the position of the boundaries.
The second approach is for the District Land Registrar to serve notice on adjoining owners. The owners must respond within a statutory time frame if they object to the position of the boundaries. If they do not respond, it is deemed that they have no objection and registration can proceed. If an adjoining owner wants to object, they arrange for a caveat to be placed against the current title that will prevent the guaranteed title from being issued. The boundary dispute is then resolved through negotiation or due legal process.

We advise that you contact RPC Land Surveyors to assist you with further advice that you may require on limited titles or the removal of limitations.

Andre Conradie
16 April 2012

Background: Cross Lease and Fee Simple Titles

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:47:00 GMT

Cross leases were a popular form of “subdivision” going as far back as the late 1960’s. In the earlier cross leases there was often no distinction made between common areas and exclusive covenant areas.

Drainage was generally combined and kerb discharge for stormwater was common practice. This cost effective form of service provision ensured the continued popularity of cross lease developments amongst property developers.

With the introduction of the Resource Management Act and resultant district plans, Councils started to impose more rigorous controls on cross lease developments. In some instances reserve contributions were being charged. Drainage rules were brought in line with those required for fee simple subdivision by mid 1990. This brought virtually all cross lease development to an end.

When undertaking a conversion to fee simple title, there are three issues to consider:-

1. Planning

2. Services

3. Contributions

Planning

Cross lease “subdivisions” from the 1990 era are likely to comply with Council planning requirements for parking and open space. Covenant areas were generally fenced and it is not likely that there will be any issues creating the new fee simple boundaries to reflect the previous covenant areas.

Earlier cross leases will often not comply with current planning rules. Councils generally accept the situation as existing and accept that the conversion of the cross lease to fee simple does not introduce additional effects.

Services

It will generally be the expectation of Councils that services are upgraded to current subdivision standards. This can often be costly depending on the location of Council services in the area and the style of drainage that was used for the cross lease. It should also be noted that different Councils have different service requirements.

Some Councils require all overhead utility services to be replaced with underground services. Again, this can be a significant cost.

It is unlikely that a common driveway being 20 – 30 years old comply with Council requirements for joint driveways. Depending on the condition of the existing driveway, there may be a Council requirement for replacement of the driveway.

The combination of drainage, driveway and utility services costs can easily outweigh the benefits and increased value that a fee simple title will create.

Contributions

Early cross lease developments attracted no contributions. Because the conversion to fee simple is not considered to be “development”, no contributions should be payable. The one gray area is that of reserve contributions. In some instances, Councils started charging reserve contributions on cross lease developments in the 1990’s. Where no reserve contribution was charged, it will definitely be payable upon conversion of the title to fee simple.

Conclusion

Upgrading a cross lease title to fee simple title will generally enhance the value of property. Associated costs can in some instances offset the enhanced value. It is important that proper due diligence is undertaken prior to proceeding with the conversion process.

We advise that you contact RPC Land Surveyors to assist you with due diligence or the process of converting your cross lease title to fee simple.

Andre Conradie 09 273 7505

1 March 2012

House costs to fall as Council fees slashed

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:56:00 GMT

First published on www.bayofplentlytimes.co.nz
by John Cousins | Thursday, February 23, 2012

Development fees in Tauranga are to be slashed in a bid to get the city's building industry out of the doldrums.

Tauranga City Council's building impact fee for a new home will drop by $5100 - a 40 per cent reduction on the current fee of $12,600. And the other component of development fees, subdivision impact fees, will drop by around a quarter to a third in most of the city's greenfield development areas.

The proposed new scale of fees takes effect on July 1 and follows years of complaints that council fees had helped make Tauranga unaffordable for many first home builders.

Peter Cooney of Classic Builders said he had been pushing for the price reductions for a long time. The council had collected high fees during the heyday of Tauranga's growth and, now that those days had passed, it was lowering the fees to get development going again. "Council fees got out of control. Guys like us were penalised by the higher fees." He welcomed the reductions as a move in the right direction, recalling how in 1996 council fees for a house totalled $4500, including consenting costs.

Mr Cooney said fees had increased dramatically from then, reaching up to $20,000 for a subdivision fee and $19,000 to $20,000 for a building consent, including the building impact fee. It meant fees sometimes accounted for around 10 per cent of a total house and land package.

The council's decision means the cost of building a home in Welcome Bay will drop by nearly $8200 - 34 per cent less than the current total development fee of nearly $23,900.

Total fees in Tauranga's other major greenfield building areas, excluding The Lakes, will drop by between 31 per cent and 38 per cent. Papamoa's Wairakei development was a special case, with its subdivision fees charged by the hectare rather than per lot.

The difficulty to calculate "robust" subdivision impact fees for infill development in the city's older suburbs led the council to abolish the fee at Mount Maunganui and to levy only enough in the rest of the city to fund the Southern Pipeline.

The new scale of fees will go out for public consultation from March 19, once the council formally adopts the draft plan for 2012-22 on March 17.

Council strategic planner Andrew Mead said the reduction in the building impact fee was mainly driven by the council reducing future capital spending on community facilities and sports fields. "We have not slashed and burned the budget without considering the services to the community," Mr Mead said. The new charges follow months of workshops with builders and developers.

Consent Notices

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:48:00 GMT

When is a common boundary not a common boundary? This question has been raised recently in relation to a consent notice.

If you subdivide or develop a property council may sometimes require a consent notice to be registered on the new certificates of Title. The document will specify a condition that council want owners of a property and all future owners to be aware of.

Back in the 90’s council had a rule that there needed to be 6 metres separation between buildings on a property. So when a property was subdivided they still wanted the 6 metres to apply and so imposed a consent notice that spelt out the distances any building must be from the new common boundary between lots 1 and 2.

A typical consent notice condition may read …

The erection of buildings on Lots 1 and 2 shall be in accordance with the rules of the District Plan for multi-units as if the land was held in one allotment under one Certificate of Title, subject to the following conditions:

(i) That any dwelling on Lot 1 shall be erected no closer than 5.1 metres to the common boundary between Lots 1 and 2

(ii) That any dwelling on Lot 2 shall be erected no closer than 0.9 metres to the common boundary between Lots 1 and 2.

A question was raised by a solicitor in relation to a 2 lot subdivision where there may be a common boundary between the access to the rear site (lot 2) and the front lot 1 as well as a common boundary parallel to the road between the dwellings on lots 1 and 2.

Did the 5.1m separation relate to the common access boundary as well as the boundary between the dwellings? The literal reading of the condition may infer so even though it was not our interpretation and it has never enforced this way in the past. If you had to keep 5.1 metres from the access boundary you may not have enough space to construct a dwelling on Lot 1.

Clarification was sought from council and they agreed with our interpretation.

We therefore confirm that given that a consent notice was to ensure physical separation of buildings the 5.1m separation distance from the common Lot 1 and Lot 2 boundary only relates to that boundary which separates the two dwellings and not the common boundary of the access strip leading to Lot 2.

Phew glad that was sorted.

Peter Crane 07 575 4911 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 07 575 4911 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
20 December 2011

New Unit Titles Act

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:50:00 GMT

The new “Unit Titles Act 2010” has come into effect in June 2011 and this replaced the 1972 Act. The new Act has far wider and better governance structures for Bodies Corporate and further clarification of the definition of Unit boundaries.

The Unit Titles Act governs building developments where multiple owners hold a type of property ownership known as a unit title. Unit owners in a unit title development own a defined part of the building (e.g. an apartment) and may have shared ownership in common areas such as lifts, stairwells, lobbies or driveways.

Since the Act first came into force in 1972, there have been major changes in the number, scale and nature of Unit developments in NZ. The Act has therefore become outdated and no longer provides a sound basis for the creation and management of Unit developments.

Some of the main changes to the Unit Titles Act 2010 include:

• Clarifying the definition of a principal units

• Streamlining the process under which a development is built in stages

• Unit entitlements replaced by ownership interest and utility interests

• More flexibility for easements and land covenants

• Access lots can be part of a unit development

• New process for layered developments

• New process for simple redevelopment

• Section 224c RMA certificates can be for stage plans instead of PUD

• Creating a fair system for calculating how much a unit owner should contribute to body corporate funds

• Stating that the body corporate owns the common property

• Clarifying the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and bodies corporate

• Creating fair and transparent governance and management structures

• Lower the voting threshold for body corporate decisions to a 75% agreement

• Provide a comprehensive disclosure regime for buyers and sellers, developers, and bodies corporate

• Provide a fully integrated and cost effective dispute resolution service through the Tenancy Tribunal.

This is an overview of what is in the new Unit Titles Act and its Regulations. If you are planning a Unit Title Development or would like any further information please contact us and we can offer advice and assist you.

Blair Jackson
9 November 2011

Surveying in Earthquake Zone

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:04:00 GMT

Early this year I had to opportunity to use my expertise in helping Christchurch recover from there disastrous quakes.

For 2 months (July – September) I worked on a range of jobs which included monitoring Christchurch’s Cashmere water reservoir for any major movement and asbuilt surveys of the entire Aranui suburb detailing all the water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure facilities.

Precise measurements were needed in order for the engineers to compute new pipe grades in what is a relatively flat city and 1mm accuracy was required to ensure any movement to Christchurch’s largest reservoir was significant or not.

The city can be described as a rather large construction site.

The suburb of Redwood where I stayed got away relatively unscathed – although there were cracks in all concrete features and bedroom doors would be difficult to open/close. Roads in the eastern part of Christchurch were shocking to say the least, with major cracks and potholes everywhere limiting speeds to 20kph. And it was and still is like a war zone along the Avon River where liquefaction caused major damage to services and properties.

It is not a pleasant place to be at the moment and with very little entertainment and a few large snow storms there would be a lot of people doing it tough.

My time in Christchurch gave me great engineering experience and was satisfying knowing I could help the recovery process.

Paul Harvey
25 October 2011

Is Property Investment Productive?

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:47:00 GMT

The Auckland Property Investment Association hosted a debate last night on the above topic. Auckland Property Investment Association president David Whitburn, argued for property being a productive investment while well know financial commentator Bernard Hickey, argued against.

David Whitburn argued property investors contribute to the economy by creating jobs in the construction industry through the construction of new houses, renovation and ongoing maintenance. This workforce contributes to the economy by paying, taxes such as GST, PAYE and company tax.

David also argued that property investors are helping the government by providing housing for people that cannot afford to own their own house. David said that it would be unrealistic to expect the government to fulfill this function particularly with current government debt levels.

Bernard Hickey countered by acknowledging that construction of homes and ongoing maintenance contribute to the economy but he argued that the price of housing and associated borrowing made it an expensive and unproductive way of creating jobs. Bernard argued that most of the lending was provided through offshore facilities. The return on those borrowings ultimately went back offshore leaving little if any benefit to the New Zealand economy.

Bernard argued that housing was needed for New Zealanders but his vision is that Kiwis should own their houses and housing should not be seen as an investment vehicle. Bernard argued that by relaxing urban limits, the price of land and hence property will come down and Kiwis will be able to afford their own homes.

Bernard acknowledged during question time that it was difficult to suggest other forms of secure investment given the poor returns on bank deposits after tax and inflation, the collapse of the finance companies and the NZX underperforming during the last decade.

At RPC we do not believe that by relaxing urban limits, the price of property will come down. Property prices are determined by the price of land, the cost of infrastructure, council levies and contributions and finally the price of house construction. We believe that ultimately people want to stay closer to the inner city and that is what sets the price of housing.

We also believe that until such time as the government demonstrates it is serious about savings and provide tax incentives for savers, New Zealanders will continue to turn to an investment with a proven track record that has served them well. That investment is property.

Andre Conradie 09 273 7505
14 September 2011

Whakatane New Office Location

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:06:00 GMT

You may not be aware that our Whakatane office has moved into a brand new office that is located in the town centre.

Unit 12
First Floor
3 George Street
Whakatane

We are very happy to be working from this bright new office and location to serve new and existing clients in the area.

Please contact me to arrange a meeting 07 307 0694 or just drop on in to discuss any project you may be working on that we could add value for you.

The location map and details for the office is shown on the footer of the website.

Rob Truter 0274 805 127
21 August 2011

New Tauranga City Plan

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:47:00 GMT

The Tauranga City Council has released its new ‘City Plan’. This is a document that sets out the legal rules for how you can build or develop the land that you own within the Tauranga City boundaries.

It’s a big document and yes there are lots of rules on what you can and cannot do.

The city also has a few different zones ie Suburban Residential Zone, City Living zone, Rural zone, and you can do different things with your property depending what zone your property is located in.

For those in town wanting to subdivide your section, the rules on what you can do with your property have changed. One of the main changes involves the minimum land area you need for your property to be able to subdivide. You now need a nett site area of at least 325m². That means if you want to subdivide off the rear site of your property, the land area of the rear site must be 325m², plus the area of the land included in the driveway out to the road. The front property must also be a minimum of 325m². So you need a minimum of 650m² (2 x 325m²) plus the driveway.

So we must look at each property individually to see what you can do and if you can subdivide.

We deal with subdivisions all the time. 2 lot infill subdivisions are our specialty.

I have a checklist we go through for each site to see if there are any issues, problems, etc. I am happy to complete this checklist for you at no cost and no obligation.

If you have a property and want to know more give me a call.

Peter Crane 0274 912 424 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0274 912 424 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
8 August 2011

Auckland Office New Location

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:05:00 GMT

You may not be aware that our Auckland office has moved into a brand new office that is located in East Tamaki.

Unit 2
2 Bishop Browne Place
East Tamaki

We are very happy to be working from this new office and location to serve new clients in the area. We are still servicing the requirements of our existing clients it will just be from our bright and new office.

Please contact me to arrange a meeting 09 273 7505 or just drop on in to discuss any project you may be working on that we could add value for you.

The location map and details for the office please see below footer of this page.

Andre Conradie 027 271 2070
25 July 2011

Minden Lifestyle Structure Plan - Update

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:46:00 GMT

Council have been working on a new Minden Lifestyle Structure Plan which will provide for subdivision in this area for up to 30 additional lots total in this zone at the time of writing.

I was asked by an affected Landowner to prepare an application for subdivision in anticipation of the council releasing the new Minden Structure Plan Rules. We met with council on 2 June to discuss the new rules and progress being made for their eventual release.

I have continued to monitor progress with council and the latest advice I have is that the new rules will be notified this Saturday July 30. Contact me (Paul Ellison) for further subdivisional advice if your property is situated in the Minden Lifestyle Structure Plan Area.

Paul Ellison 0274 409 462
20 July 2011

UPDATE - 5 August

We mentioned last week WBOP District Council’s intention to publicly notify the Minden Lifestyle Structure Plan. The notification occurred on Saturday 30/7/11. This change to the District Plan creates a limited opportunity to subdivide for landowners in this area.

Council’s District Plan Policies restrict the number of new lots that can be created within this zone until future strategic roading is in place. Council have advised that they have already received a handful of applications today (Monday 1 August). We will continue to monitor the uptake of this opportunity to create new lots in the Minden Lifestyle Zone.

Contact me for further subdivisional advice if you think your property may qualify for subdivision under the new Structure Plan rules and you are considering taking advantage of the opportunity provided under this rule change.

Paul Ellison 0274 409 462

Latest News

Limited Titles

Background

Implications

Removal of limitations survey

Background: Cross Lease and Fee Simple Titles

Planning

Services

Contributions

Conclusion

House costs to fall as Council fees slashed

Consent Notices

New Unit Titles Act

Surveying in Earthquake Zone

Is Property Investment Productive?

Whakatane New Office Location

New Tauranga City Plan

Auckland Office New Location

Minden Lifestyle Structure Plan - Update