More painful bureaucracy

September 25th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Nicola Stables says a move that would require holiday homeowners like herself to obtain a resource consent to rent their properties out to six or more people could result in visitors going elsewhere for their holidays.

Resource consents for holiday homes! What next.

Ms Stables said she was perplexed by the Thames Coromandel District Council draft district plan, which recommends that visitor accommodation, such as hers, that caters for more than six paying guests obtain resource consent.

I would have thought Coromandel is the last district that wants to make it harder to have people have holiday homes available for hire.

What problem is the Council trying to solve by requiring resource consent?

It seems this move is being driven by the Motel Association. How very sad they are trying to impose extra costs on holiday homes. There is a world of difference between staying in commercial accommodation and renting a holiday home.  A holiday home is just a home. It should be of no matter to anyone but the owner whether they stay in it, lease it out long-term, or rent it out short-term.

Mr Baines said private accommodation was undercutting moteliers during the high season from mid-December to the end of March.

So it is economic protectionism.

I would never ever stay in a motel in a location like Coromandel. It is not price that determines I go to holiday homes instead of motels. It is that I want to relax in a house. I stay in motels when travelling on business, or attending conferences etc.

UPDATE: I understand the situation is slightly different to that reported. The current plan already says a resource consent may be needed for properties that can take six or more people. I don’t think it is widely enforced. The Council looked to increase the limit to 12, but has now said it will stay at six. So not a change at this stage. I do have to say though that I think six is too low a number.

Tags:

20 Responses to “More painful bureaucracy”

  1. redeye (631 comments) says:

    Free market indeed.

    This country regulates to protect so many industries no wonder service is so poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    There is a move to do that on the Gold Coast also. Much to the disgust of people who own holiday houses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. duggledog (1,340 comments) says:

    The problem they are trying to solve is – I’d say – debt, fixed by sucking more and more money out of anyone and everyone and everything.

    Wait till Cunliffe and Co get in – they will impose licences, fees and taxes on everything in sight. From a licence to use a boat AND to fish, right through to death duties and capital gains taxes. Guarantee it. It’s all they know.

    But until people gang together like the French and tell organisations like TDC to get stuffed or they will have a rates revolt, this rubbish will go on and on.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. sthn.jeff (100 comments) says:

    Fair enough when some people are letting their “Holiday Homes” for 50 weeks a year. They are essentially running a business. Why should they be exempt the costs that a motel is? Fair enough if they let a couple of mates use them but they are often run on a commercial basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    I actually have no issue with a requirement to get a license to use a boat.

    Death duty and CGT will never get in, unless they want to be a one term government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Odakyu-sen (440 comments) says:

    I’m glad we have a National Party government that is working to help people become wealthy through their own initiative and effort….

    ….no, wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    sthn.jeff – why shouldn’t people be allowed to run a holiday house as a business? People run normal houses as businesses (long term rentals) and nobody is suggesting that they shouldn’t be able to.

    Why should they be exempt the costs that a motel is?

    Maybe the compliance costs of running a motel should be reduced, rather than introducing new costs to their competitors.

    And the Greens and Labour don’t want National to reform the RMA to prevent exactly this sort of abuse by councils.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. sthn.jeff (100 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac – A long term rental is a very different thing from a Holiday let. You could more or less guarantee that the Income generated goes no where near the IRD.

    Having lived next to similar Holiday Homes in Arrowtown I can see why there is a need to put some regulation around these

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. unaha-closp (1,111 comments) says:

    It seems this move is being driven by the Motel Association. How very sad they are trying to impose extra costs on holiday homes.

    Ironically the only people currently faced with, what you infer are pointless, regulations are members of the Motel Association. A clear case of economic protectionism indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    >Ms Stables said she was perplexed by the Thames Coromandel District Council draft district plan, which recommends that visitor accommodation, such as hers, that caters for more than six paying guests obtain resource consent.

    Coincidentally, along with six friends I’m renting a holiday home in the Coromandel this christmas. I think five of my friends are intending to stay indoor while two of us are pitching a tent in the garden.

    Do I need a resource consent for my tent? Will they come around to inspect it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SteveO (76 comments) says:

    I very much doubt that any motel in the Thames Coromandel area provides accommodation for 6+ people in one living unit – which is what large families / extended families / groups of friends would be looking for. I assume that, rather than just being a grinch, the Motel Association hopes that once resource consent is required for 6+ they can begin arguing for it to be extended to all holiday homes, particularly the smaller ones who compete directly with their members.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. edhunter (493 comments) says:

    Of course the other thing to mention here is that the holiday home owner while paying some of the highest rates in the district is not able to have a vote come local election time because they don’t reside within the Coromandel which also makes them an easy & soft target for the council when it comes to rate gouging.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    A long term rental is a very different thing from a Holiday let. You could more or less guarantee that the Income generated goes no where near the IRD.

    And that has what to do with the council?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. sthn.jeff (100 comments) says:

    And that has what to do with the council?

    Nothing at all, just a statement

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    It seemed like you were using the assertion that some of them might not pay tax as an justification for holiday houses to require a resource consent.

    To be honest I think the chances are if they’re not paying tax then they won’t worry about a consent either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Newbie (35 comments) says:

    I am sure that the RMA does not allow the consideration of, in this case, economic competition amongst the accommodation sector.

    Has the council provided a rationale for having to apply for such a resource consent? Have they got evidence to show that there are impacts on the environment when there are more than six people staying at a house? How different is the situation of someone inviting their family members or friends consisting of more than six people staying with them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    I think the real issue is that in a place like Turangi the motels are being shut out bu batch nd holiday lets. There is something like 47 book a batches in Turangi.
    This has come about because the internet makes the information available.These compete directly and often it could be assumed that the IRD don’t know about the money. Under the new rules this year expenses can only be claimed against days/nights let. so the price comes down leaving the motels being undercut by the batch owners.
    (of course most of them now own the batches because they can’t sell them and don’t want to drop their price. Any income is better than none.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Davo36 (34 comments) says:

    What problem is the Council trying to solve by requiring resource consent?

    Funding of course. Funding for themselves that is. Oh and a bit of control over how people live their lives too. Councils like them both, money and control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. goldnkiwi (987 comments) says:

    You can vote in a district that you do not reside but pay rates in called a ratepayer vote. It is a special vote that you are on a separate roll for. Check it out through the Council concerned. It is confined to one vote per property though even if it is in joint names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (4,902 comments) says:

    ‘sthn.jeff (99) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    Fair enough when some people are letting their “Holiday Homes” for 50 weeks a year. They are essentially running a business. Why should they be exempt the costs that a motel is? Fair enough if they let a couple of mates use them but they are often run on a commercial basis.’

    What a load of crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.