This actually makes sense, as the big projects often rely solely on paperwork anyway. What I mean is: Mostly, permitting bodies don't have the engineering expertise to certify what the engineers are designing, so they just take down the credentials, and ensure the paperwork is filed correctly and rubber stamp. Really it's a waste of time.
Governments have for decades tried to simplify consenting processes, and they try things like expidited consents for simple houses, for example, (NZ piloted that, back in the late nineties, but it failed, because most new house builders want something a bit more bouji). In the same decade, Germany tried 'no consents needed for any dwelling up to three stories high': the theory was that builders were perfectly capable (mature, was the word they used), thank you very much.
The problems were only found years later, when it was discovered that nobody remembered the geotechnical engineers, and foundations cracked, or three-story houses were built on sandspits next to a river. The issue is that governments try to tackle the inspectors work-load and consenting wait-times by nibbling away at the smallest, what they view as, 'low-risk' projects. However, arguably the 'small' projects have the highest risks, because cowboy-operators and a general lack of knowledge.
The point is: When there is a billion-dollar project, many engineers are hired. They have project managers for every part of the process. They hire skilled foremen. Everyone is focused. Really, the Building Control peeps are better employed making sure the geotech report is adhered to, and the front-door steps are safe to use, for the residential builds - not wondering around, on some impossibly complicated site, having the site-manager explain what today's 'improvement' is.
But there is also this weird hierarchy, whereby it is seen as some sort of badge of honor to importantly preside over the expensive builds, and pass the complex owner-builds to the new-poops. So, it is unlikely for governments, who confer with industry, to find it necessary to reduce the work-load footprint of big projects from the consenting process.
All that action... and it is completely unreasonable for me to be "allowed" to build a modest home on my own land. See how I cease to give a fuck about the larger issues when my own personal issues are placed at the bottom of the pile...
This actually makes sense, as the big projects often rely solely on paperwork anyway. What I mean is: Mostly, permitting bodies don't have the engineering expertise to certify what the engineers are designing, so they just take down the credentials, and ensure the paperwork is filed correctly and rubber stamp. Really it's a waste of time.
Governments have for decades tried to simplify consenting processes, and they try things like expidited consents for simple houses, for example, (NZ piloted that, back in the late nineties, but it failed, because most new house builders want something a bit more bouji). In the same decade, Germany tried 'no consents needed for any dwelling up to three stories high': the theory was that builders were perfectly capable (mature, was the word they used), thank you very much.
The problems were only found years later, when it was discovered that nobody remembered the geotechnical engineers, and foundations cracked, or three-story houses were built on sandspits next to a river. The issue is that governments try to tackle the inspectors work-load and consenting wait-times by nibbling away at the smallest, what they view as, 'low-risk' projects. However, arguably the 'small' projects have the highest risks, because cowboy-operators and a general lack of knowledge.
The point is: When there is a billion-dollar project, many engineers are hired. They have project managers for every part of the process. They hire skilled foremen. Everyone is focused. Really, the Building Control peeps are better employed making sure the geotech report is adhered to, and the front-door steps are safe to use, for the residential builds - not wondering around, on some impossibly complicated site, having the site-manager explain what today's 'improvement' is.
But there is also this weird hierarchy, whereby it is seen as some sort of badge of honor to importantly preside over the expensive builds, and pass the complex owner-builds to the new-poops. So, it is unlikely for governments, who confer with industry, to find it necessary to reduce the work-load footprint of big projects from the consenting process.
All that action... and it is completely unreasonable for me to be "allowed" to build a modest home on my own land. See how I cease to give a fuck about the larger issues when my own personal issues are placed at the bottom of the pile...