Tuesday, November 27, 2012


The new editor of "Truth", Cam Slater,aka Whaleoil, yesterday gave us a heads up on another central issue of "affordable housing" confronting first home buyers.

Evidently the pointy heads at the town planning office of the Hamilton City Hall have come up with a real doosy. In a move right up there with the tide defying antics of King canute, planners have decreed that houses must be built with regard to the official view of aspect ignoring the wishes of an owner.

Evidently having the temerity to place the dwelling with regard to the sun, the prevailing wind or any such stupid personal wish of an occupier has been ruled irresponsible as it may assist the nefarious moves of a burglar so a planning rule is now demanding a driveway to the rear of a dwelling.

This results in  a direct rise in the basic cost in the order of $15k plus additional driveway costs, longer driveways (more opportunities to redesign the shape of a toddler) and with the very small section sizes a very good chance that the Garage will enjoy the sunny corner with a view.

Town planners have evolved a collective mindset from a seemingly incestuous view of the world backed by a we know best attitude that ignores the ideas of Joe and Josephine as to what they may deem the best practise for their situation.

Recall if you will the villas of 100 years ago that were built to the street whether it ran north/south, east/west or any other alignment that then had the 'parlour' to the street and the kitchen and laundry facing the 'back yard'.

Now the elite clever clogs in town planning are back to the future.


Paulus said...

What share of Labour's 196 new houses a week will Hamilton agree to ?
At under $300,000 per house plus the cost of land, which Labour has not factored in.

the conservative said...

I really don’t get the connection between crime and the garage at the back of the house—that baffles me.

So let’s see, if we put the garage at the back of the house….hmmm, doesn’t that mean more concrete drive and less land for gardening, etc? Doesn’t that mean more land will be required?

I really think for some of these pinheads, it’s all about securing their jobs. If they don’t come up with new regulations, there would be no need to employ them.
There is really something very disturbing about this.