Building permits expected to rise

Press, 3 September 1986, Page 10

Building permits expected to rise

Building permit fees in Kaiapoi Borough could rise almost 100 per cent next month if a new scale of charges is adopted at a council meeting on September 15.

The new charges would be the same as those made in Riccarton Borough, with the building permit fee for a building valued at $50,000 rising from $l2O to $2lO. The new fees would come in on October 1 and would not include the goods and services tax of 10 per cent.

The range of fees for buildings valued between $25,000 and $200,000 would be from $135 to $460, instead of $7O to $260.

The new charges were recommended by the council’s town-planning and by-laws committee.

The committee heard that the fees had not risen since 1980. In the 1985-86 year, the council’s income

from building permits and dangerous goods licences was $9816, little more than half its building inspection costs. In moving the increased charges, Cr Margaret Cleland proved that a loud voice is not a necessary attribute of a councillor. A sore throat and a lost voice forced her to scribble her motion on paper, then successfully argue for it through literary persuasion rather than oratory. Cr Jim Bryden suggested that any revision of the fees should be done more gradually and in conjunction with other North Canterbury local authorities. Other councillors, however, pointed out that there had been no increase for six years and the new fees would still be less than those in Christchurch City and Riccarton Borough. Government departments seem set to con-

tinue using the Kaiapoi Social Services Centre in spite of an increase in the centre’s running costs. A meeting of the Government departments concerned on August 21 proposed that if the running costs for the next year were reasonable, a new rental would be negotiated by the State Service Commission. The commission would recover this rent from the departments, which included the Justice Department, and the Departments of Health, Labour, and Social Welfare. The departments have said they would be sympathetic to any request for funding to cover running costs incurred up to September 30, but they would not require a receptionist for their own use of the centre. The council would be expected to cover the costs of the other organisations which use the centre.