‘Building Permits Easier To Get In Auckland’

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31154, 2 September 1966, Page 3

‘Building Permits Easier To Get In Auckland’

New Zealand Press Association*

WELLINGTON, Sept. 1.

Building permits for the Wellington area are twice as hard to get as permits to build in Auckland, according to figures issued through the Ministry of Works tonight.

Since the Government’s programming restrictions were introduced last year, nearly 40 per cent of the applications made for permission to develop in Wellington have been deferred for up to three years.

In Auckland fewer than 20 per cent of the applications were held back.

But according to the Building Programmer (Mr R. F. Paris), the comparison was “not valid.”

In terms of money values. < a higher proportion of Wei-1 lington projects had been de-1 ferred, said Mr Davis. Pro-! jects costing £27 million had! been proposed and of these | about £lO million worth had! been deferred. In Auckland jobs costing' £lO million had been held! back out of applications total-! i ling £56 million. Office Buildings j The reason for the differ-! ence was the large number! of Wellington applications! which had been for office j ' buildings. Office projects! represented about £8 million! of the deferments. “Very heavy applications! I are still coming for majorj office buildings here,” said Mr i Davis.

I “It is not our policy to disicourage office building in Wei-. | lington. But the time is coming when saturation will be : reached as it has in Auckland already, and there will [be more offices than tenants." J Mr Paris said the programming scheme had achieved its | object of bringing back stability to the building industry. ' Before it was introduced [the industry was “heavily | over-committed” and most j builders had a backlog of up j to two years’ work. They had !been suffering from shortages [of labour and rising wage j rates. ! The level of restraint im- : posed by programming had ! not been excessive, but had ! brought back competition and i stability while preventing costs from rising further. Throughout the country a

i total of 731 projects, officially j valued at £BB million, but I probably worth nearly £lOO j million, had been approved | since programming began. Another 172, worth £36 million, had been deferred and 15 more costing £9 million were under consideration. The effect of holding back unessential development had been to ensure the available building work force was used to the best advantage of the public. There had been no restrictions on development such as schools, hospitals and charitable foundations. Apart from office buildings, current deferments in Wellington included churches (£444,000), factories (£394,130), shops (£300,000), warehouses and stores (£189,352), workshops and garages (£179,017), and hotels and motels (£138,400) There had obviously been no recession in the building [industry since the restricItions were brought in, said Mr Paris, but it seemed from Government statements that there would be a tightening of business activity and that programming would continue.

When restrictions were lifted they would probably be phased out gradually over a period, he said. Builders’ View Mr W. M. Sommerville, director of the Master Builders’ Federation, said builders believed programming was having the opposite effect to that intended by the Government. “This federation is basically opposed to the restric-

tions.” he said. “The Building Programmer says that at the inception of the regulations builders had a backlog of two years’ work. “I do not know how he measured this item, but the tendering activity over the last 12 months has not shown this to be factual, even on average. “Competition in any field ceases only when the number of tenderers drops, and there is no real sign of this happening in the building industry—nor has there been for many years. Backlog “We believe these controls were brought into being as a means of cutting overseas spending, to assist In equating the labour supply with demand and to avoid pressure on the Government for increased immigration quotas,” said Mr Sommerville. “On this basis it must only be accepted as a short-term expedient.” Mr Sommerville said continued deferments built up a backlog of demand which already stood at about £25 million. “This can hardly bring stability to an industry trying to plan a future programme to meet the nation’s needs. This federation has always opposed the stop-and-go policies of successive governments and we feel that continued controls can only be described as an evasive.action rather than a cure.”