...................

花天堂

.........................

陌生的香港人

花少，他們連你是男是女都不知道 - 看來你在南島的知名度還有待加強，呵呵

花天堂

传统上女生都喜欢扮男生.

祝英台,朱丽叶,古今中外都有这个癖好.

不过LZ真的是小弟;你不要被他头像晃点了.
UV15 发表于 2010-9-9 22:12

陌生的香港人

49# 陌生的香港人

RMA是用在 resource consent, building consent是只跟Building Act有關. 修房子要BC, 割地,加蓋還有打掉房子是要RC. 兩個不一樣. 不過他讓先斬後奏的話有住宅可以偷偷摸摸去把房子擴大....後面 ...
HFSJC 发表于 2010-9-9 18:59

我沒有說它們是一樣, 之前我已說過它們是不同的法例, 卻能影響到這個發展過程

我是說修房子有可能在重建時違規，比如說比原來的建高了一點，建大了一點，又或site layout 的設計違反你們 Christchurch City Council City Plan 的規定，又或者百幾年前原來是OK，但現在的法規已不允許，那重建時是不是要按現在的規定來comply? 不comply的話是不是要鄰居同意又開聽證會什麼的? 括免的話在法律上又如何能自圓其說以致防止不滿的隔壁鄰居打官司來告council？ - 這些都是resource consent 的事情，按照一般程序來做的話都可以加慢重建進度 - RC絕不只是‘割地，加蓋，打掉房子’才要。

可能有點離題，但我只就那個最新那地震的法案發表一點個人看法。

everest

请问有没有机构可以检查民房的防震安全，防震等级。有没有高人知道

UV15

传统上女生都喜欢扮男生.

祝英台,朱丽叶,古今中外都有这个癖好.

不过LZ真的是小弟;你不要被他头像晃点了.

炫目

弱弱的问一下， 为什么lz自称小弟。。。。貌似lz是girl

UV15

真后悔没有学土木阿,这个时候也能说说技术了.

赚的也多,工作机会多.多好.

liam

这么专业，咋不去和council或John Key直接写信所呢

MaxPower

你们都很专业。。

Adagio

欢迎名人光临

顶技术贴

花天堂

54# 花天堂

exemption審核只是審核符不符合exemption條件.
HFSJC 发表于 2010-9-9 19:33

同學你這句話就是審核啊....我不說了...再說沒意思

HFSJC

54# 花天堂

exemption審核只是審核符不符合exemption條件.

花天堂

51# 花天堂

沒錯是都要審核, 審核價錢有差, 要經過的手續也有差, 速度也有差. 有BC最後一定要有收驗, BC Exemption最後沒有收驗
HFSJC 发表于 2010-9-9 19:04

只要需要審核的東西, 就是不能隨便拆=.=

HFSJC

51# 花天堂

沒錯是都要審核, 審核價錢有差, 要經過的手續也有差, 速度也有差. 有BC最後一定要有收驗, BC Exemption最後沒有收驗

HFSJC

49# 陌生的香港人

RMA是用在 resource consent, building consent是只跟Building Act有關. 修房子要BC, 割地,加蓋還有打掉房子是要RC. 兩個不一樣. 不過他讓先斬後奏的話有住宅可以偷偷摸摸去把房子擴大....後面有沒有去報BC也沒有辦法查

花天堂

花大, Building Act裡面的Schedule 1有說住宅裡不是載重牆的變動是可以building consent exemption的.  現在John Key大天才想要搞先斬後奏先跳過consent蓋完再就地合法, 真這樣之後那些重蓋的房子還會是一堆一搖就垮 ...
HFSJC 发表于 2010-9-9 07:27

申請Exemption的手續, 跟申請Consent, 兩者都要經過的審核, 沒什麼不同=.=

鮩譤澪

谢啦~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

陌生的香港人

Hey, I m not meant to join the fight between you guys, but other than Building Act, how about Resource Management Act (RMA)?

The gov't does not appear to also give reconstruction projects an exemption under the RMA/Christchurch City Plan nor give any thought on how the emergency legislation will link to the RMA process but just focus on the Building Act/Building Consent which does not sound very sensible to me.

It is normally the RMA/Resource Consent that drags the development process more than the Building Act /Building Consent. If the current mechanism still in place, planners in the Christchurch City Council will need to fast track their plan check procedure OR may even need to turn a blind eye / give a green light over the redesign/reconstruction of the existing buildings which may slightly infringe the CCC's City Plan (i.e., no resource consent is required). The new legislation should clearly state the extent of such a tolerance.

Also, some very old/historic buildings will not comply with the current planning rules in the Christchurch City Plan in terms of bulk and height, etc and require the developer to establish the "existing use rights" under section 10 of the RMA if it is to be rebuilt to the same level after the one year grace period - it is not sure how the new emergency law address this legal planning issue.

On the other hand, if one can simply skip a building consent process for the time being and rebuild the structure anyway without a scrutiny of Council, it is very likely that some cowboys may build more/higher than what the building was before - which will result in a number of litigations from the adjoining unhappy neighbours down the track but the structure cannot be demolished as it was built...

HFSJC

Who said the new law will secure life and finance? And have you tried to present your case to the council under S41(1)(c)(i) for buidling consent exemption or you just assumed it doesn't work? The Building Act and NZBC are there for protecting the members of the public. Do you even know what's the procedure of a buidling consent review? The whole thing does not take more than 2 weeks if you have everything well prepared by someone professional.  If you know how to present the case for building consent exemption that will be even faster. What is the most dangerous to the public is not following the Building Act and NZBC.

greentree

my point is that if a special law can secure more people's life and finance,why not give a chance? I just back from RSA building, all the poor and elder people living in these area, and over 25 units was moderate damaged, but still not under S41(1)(c)(i) of the building Act 2004. they asked me to check everywhere for them as their property manager has already flied away to Australia. they all badly horrified, and nobody care.  if getting all units to be rebuilt or repaired after the full building consent package to be proved, how long it would be take for the ending of their suffering.

HFSJC

My post wasn't targeted at you, all of those are the questions the government need to think about before rushing to decision and killing the entire equilibrium.

greentree

作为这么多的受灾群众,请你也面对他们的眼睛这么发表一番官方的演讲,如果还可以保证这个承诺,不用看到任何失望的眼神,我就膜拜你

greentree

我只想说好官方的回答,仅次而已.

HFSJC

The building consent process is 20 days, only the extremely dodgy ones will have endless RFIs and drag on and on for 3 years. People engaging good engineering companies should not be afraid of the building consent process. If you have PS1 from the engineers then the building consent can be processed very quickly. The fire safety is required based on Clause 112 of Building Act 2004 and it's not something new. It's during the building consent process the council can keep a record of all the PS1 from the engineers. What you have said may fall under the peer review process and that can drag on even longer. Furthermore, who is going to be liable if something goes wrong with the building? There is no personal liability here in NZ, so even if you have chartered engineer issuing PS1, the liability stops when the company dies.

greentree

我不认为新提案会影响灾后重建的问题,反而可以大大提高灾后重建的速度,使更多的经济恢复,安定人心.首先我们要说的就是在没有申请building consent 的前提下,仍然是可以由注册的工程师被介入到设计加固的过程中的,如果全部按照full building consent package来的话所有的工作需要3年才可以完成,那些还在外面流浪的人,还有经济建筑需要收入的人是不可以等那么久的.顺便说下,防火安全不应该只看一点,而应该看全部,首先是防火工程师的报告中已经明确了防火墙的设置和贴面要求,和逃生路线.再说更新的building code是从去年才可是强制性要求了fire/smoke alarm的要求的.可以说大家都是在灾难和经验中不断完善的过程.我觉得非常之时行非常之法,是可以理解的.只要结构,建筑,监理,建造,四方面共同合作形成一个互补监督机构,最后再向council抱备也不是不可以实现的方案.

HFSJC

花大, Building Act裡面的Schedule 1有說住宅裡不是載重牆的變動是可以building consent exemption的.  現在John Key大天才想要搞先斬後奏先跳過consent蓋完再就地合法, 真這樣之後那些重蓋的房子還會是一堆一搖就垮的恐怖房子
順便一提的是牆裡用保麗龍降低成本是沒錯, 到時候燒起來也好玩得不得了. Riccarton那裡幾年前就有一家隔壁失火結果他家外牆燒光光

anna228

学习了。。。。

xli422

可是基督城............好悶啊!!!!!!

在奧克蘭都快要悶死了... 在基督城的話應該會立刻悶熟....
花天堂 发表于 2010-9-6 23:00

我们不仅仅是熟了 这下地震了 都快糊了

xli422

专业啊！！！！！！！！！！！1
普及了一下专业只是