“The developer said I had to put the plans in or they were going to lose something like $50,000.
“I didn’t want to do it but I was under a lot of pressure.”
The developer, who isn’t named in the decision, had an agreement with the council to waive some of the consent fees if they had the plans submitted by a certain date - known as a remissions agreement.
The plans related to a series of new builds in Wellington’s Lower Hutt for which Sharp was commissioned to carry out design work.
However, due to sales of some of the builds falling over and a series of redesigns, the plans were submitted four or five months later than intended. Sharp submitted them on the final day possible.
For the final set of three detached homes, he said the engineer hadn’t finished his calculations and urged him to just submit something to buy him enough time to do them.
“Essentially I did it to help them out … in hindsight, I wish I hadn’t,” Sharp said.
“I’ve learned my lesson.”
In the board’s decision, which was released last week, it said Sharp knowingly submitted a substandard building consent application that could and would not be consented to so that his client could obtain the benefit of the remissions agreement.
“In short, [Sharp] misled the council to obtain a pecuniary benefit for his client,” the board said.
At the hearing, held earlier this year, the board was provided with an email that showed Sharp had contacted the developer after he’d submitted the plans and said: “As discussed with you, the plans as they are are not exactly buildable…”
After the board received a complaint from another contractor working on the new builds and made inquiries, Sharp admitted he shouldn’t have submitted the plans as they were.
“I concede that I should not have lodged the applications knowing that they were not correct,” he told the board’s investigator.
“I had absolutely nothing to gain by lodging the applications when they were not ready.”
The board found that while Sharp’s conduct was intentional, it did not reach the threshold for a finding of disrepute.
“The board doubted that [Sharp] had turned his mind to the implications of what he was doing. Rather he was acting to protect his client’s interests. Those interests would have been better served by attending to a compliant design and building consent application in a more timely manner.”
As a result, he was ordered to pay the board’s costs of $3500 for holding a hearing into his conduct.
It ruled Sharp had incurred a financial loss, had learned from the matter and that others involved were also culpable.
“[Sharp’s] conduct was calculated and deceptive, and his consent applications were woefully inadequate. Any future contraventions of this nature will not be dealt with so lightly,” the decision said.
The Hutt City Council has been approached for comment.
