Good grief. Page 1 / 2

xmakara, Jun 19, 4:10 am


adnil3, Jun 19, 4:29 am
ii was talking with a property releveller a year b4 quakes. i asked what areas were his busiest as was looking to buy east chch. he said he had a contract with ? for work in travis county . regular work as land was not good. the condition of contract was no marked vehicles were allowed, marked being logo or name of business that would identify foundation repairs. hmmm the rich pretending all is ok when reality was they invested in overpriced lemons. get real travis county peeps, you have been fooling yourself for yrs your upmarket when really you were a sinking deceitful market.

janbodean, Jun 19, 4:32 am
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable. I have to wonder why anyone would pay the hugely inflated prices to live in Travis County. Used to live across the road from that development and in the early days they had no end of problems with slumping of the houses because of the instability of the land. It was a natural ponding area which was drained and "remedied" to make it fit to build on. How precious can these people be?

nicsta4, Jun 19, 4:33 am
That's what i thought snobby bunch of fools get of your high horse Mr King. Who would want to live with you as a neighbour be most likely a peeping tom lol have his drone up perving ops i mean you are all behaving and following the guidelines correctly that your cat is peeing and pooing in the right time and spot and your dog is not Barking to loud and you all in bed at the right time with very quiet love making. Mr king keep your snobby street lol

aphra1, Jun 19, 4:35 am
Wasn't the area formerly known as Travis Swamp?

dannyboy24, Jun 19, 4:57 am
What's a "Nimby"?

lmbyas, Jun 19, 5:18 am
Not in my backyard.

dannyboy24, Jun 19, 5:40 am
Ah. thanks. makes sense

ronash, Jun 19, 5:50 am
. Charlie Brown

nzoomed, Jun 19, 5:54 am
Its pathetic if you ask me!

Whats wrong with a relocatable home anyway?

Made of good solid native timber and not a piece of crap that will suffer from leaky building syndrome.

Bunch of toffs need to do something better with their lives.

samanya, Jun 19, 6:00 am
I agree with you.
Toffs? With their ugly (no taste) houses? Big is not always better.
Travis county (formerly swamp) is hardly one of the most desirable parts of ChCh to live . is it?
Not my choice.

lankylass, Jun 19, 6:14 am
Unfortunately if it breaches the covenants in the titles the other residents can quite legally object to the house being moved onto the vacant section. The owner of the section, presumably the owner of the house, must have known about the covenants placed on the land, so it was foolish of her to try and avoid them and place the relocatable house on the land. Presumably she could have gotten around the covenant by having the house built on the section initially. But I'm guessing that the covenant will contain other requirements, such as the size and design of houses allowed to be built in the subdivision. I expect it would also say that no caravans are allowed to be parked on residents' section. It's not an unusual thing. Many new suburbs have covenants placed on the various titles as the land is sub-divided. The owner of that particular section would have known about the covenant but obviously went ahead and tried to breach it.

lambrat, Jun 19, 6:21 am
my mum was a rather successful (welly) real estate agent, and i learned a thing or two from her,. fortunately.
i couldn't believe my eyes when i saw brookhaven, travis country and the second bexley 'developments' get the green light.

only supreme optimists would be keen - for want of a better word - enough to go into a lifetime of that much debt for a new house on land that only very recently was a swamp.

lankylass, Jun 19, 6:27 am
Much of Christchurch is built on swamp land. There are 3 new subdivisions being built on in Halswell which were all swamp land a few years ago.

lambrat, Jun 19, 6:30 am
yes i know, the closest i got to buying near water was house on corner of avonside drive and ngarimu street, but i bought this one instead, a km back from the river, and on a rise.
number one homeowner's rule. water is your biggest enemy.
there is no way i'd buy on those halswell subdivisions, but good luck to those who do. hopefully nothing will happen in their lifetimes (which is what i thought about bexley, travis & brookhaven at the time. although the council refused the second bexley subdivision but the developer took it to the environment court and won.)

samanya, Jun 19, 7:30 am
I suspect that your post pretty much covers it.

nzoomed, Jun 19, 11:45 am
+1
One reason ill NEVER buy or build in one of those new subdivisions, the covenants put me off.
Interesting that they are not necessarily legally enforceable too.

One day that home will be the only one standing and perhaps will be worth more than the rest of the crap that has popped up.

nzoomed, Jun 19, 11:48 am
Thats why concrete pads are not a good idea on such land, especially if liquefaction ever occurred in such areas in future quakes.

Ironically some covenants dont allow homes on piles (which is stupid) I know what home i would rather have. Most homes on piles were easily repaired after the February quake also, cant be said with concrete pad foundations.

stevexc, Jun 19, 7:21 pm
I have to side with the existing home owners here. The covenants were set up so they could live in a neighbourhood with like minded people, that is their right to do.

Before anyone asks no I do not like covenants and yes I do own a house in an area with no covenants. I simply believe that if other people want a small area to themselves and their cookie cutter home friends then that is their right.

blb71, Jun 20, 12:24 am
We were recently going to live in a sub division but because of the conditions, we chose not to. We were going to build new but we were not allowed to take our sleep out with us. (it was only a year old). If we did, we were told that we would be charged $100 per day until we complied.

mm12345, Jun 20, 12:41 am
Covenants will be void if it can be shown that a principle purpose of the covenant is to stop the land being used for housing for people on low incomes. (sect 277A(1)(a) of the Property Law Act, 2007).
(note - that the wording is "a' - not "the" principle purpose)

So, arguing for enforcement of any covenant based on minimum size, "quality" etc, and any argument based on "protecting land values" etc might be on very shaky ground - so to speak, as with a nod and a wink, of course that's the #1 reason why such covenants are put in place.



One would need to be very careful how one might define those desirable "like minded" people - and how one might seek to exclude them from one's neighbourhood, as you'd almost certainly be in breach of the Human Rights Act (1993) and would most likely void any such covenant (and hopefully you'd also be prosecuted and punished).
It is not your right under any circumstance to use any means at all to exclude people from living in your neighbourhood because they aren't "like minded".

puddles11, Jun 20, 1:46 am
Agreed.

crazynana, Jun 20, 1:48 am
After the earthquakes we were red zoned and looked at buying a section and building in a certain subdivision. We were given a printed book of covenants. 39 from memory. While there was no actual discrimination, the allowable things were listed, such as colour of the house, roof, fence etc, materials for the building, pitch of the roof, size even of the blocks used (no bricks or linear board), distance of the window frames back from the face of the building. on and on right down to the plants you could plant in your garden.The thing is that the "required materials etc are expensive so it eliminates many people. You even had to have an approved architect and then pay the developer $2000.00 to have your plans approved by them. Needless to say we declined to go there. We drove through there a while after moving elsewhere and noticed how bland the whole place is with all houses the same colour etc. Happy where we are now.

-weasel-, Jun 20, 4:45 am
Yes my Parents were denied consent to build where there is now a huge subdivision in Halswell due to the poor quality of the land/swamp. Pretty sad stuff really - especially now we know a fault line travels through that area

astrophe, Jun 20, 6:04 am
Exactly.

Although, they usually come with penalties per day until the problem is fixed. I'd have stood by and let them move it - THEN taken it to court. :)

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)