KEY POINTS:
A new sign for a church has become a sign of the times, showing how even a simple project can be entangled in costly red tape.
Since the 1960s, there have been signs on the lawn outside St Barnabas Anglican Church in the North Shore suburb of Glenfield.
Vandals struck and the church's administrators decided two signs should be replaced with one.
A sign costing $600 - made by parishioners to save money - was put up in March last year.
Then, as parish secretary Christine Britain recalls, "an absolutely ridiculous" battle with red tape began, ending in a bill from the North Shore City Council for $1698.41.
Before replacing the sign, said Mrs Britain, the church obtained verbal confirmation of its plan from a council staff member.
"This was reasonable as it was replacing two old signs that had been vandalised and were an eyesore.
"It was considered we had existing use rights."
But then a resident complained that the sign was bigger than the original. It was 3.6sq m and the council said it could claim existing use rights only if it was no more than 2sq m.
"We were then instructed to apply for a resource consent," said Mrs Britain. A non-refundable fee of $880 was paid, which the parish accepts it had to pay.
But Mrs Britain said the council then said that it was short-staffed and needed to engage an outside consultant to prepare a report for Glenfield hearing commissioners.
"That was totally over the top," said Mrs Britain, who led a deputation to this month's council regulatory committee to ask for a reduction.
"We had to pay double because the council did not have time to do it.
"The need to use a consultant was not our problem ... It was the council's problem.
"We cannot understand why the council needed to bring in a consultant in any case, because we gave all the information, including photos of the original signs.
"I think they are very mean-spirited.
"We are not destitute but it's the principle that we're going for here."
The Glenfield Community Board says the church should have been told that if it slightly downsized the sign it would not need a consent.
The regulatory committee has called for a report to be considered at tomorrow night's council meeting.
Committee member and councillor Ivan Dunn said it was a "ludicrous" affair.
"They have been put through the hoops of bureaucracy for a commonsense thing," Mr Dunn said.
"It will take a lot of coins in the plate to cover that extra $800, which could be fairly well and wisely spent on church charity work."
An inquiry by council managers says existing use rights do not apply to a bigger sign and a resource consent was appropriate.
A review of detailed accounts of processing time and costs showed no reason to waive the outstanding fee of $818.41, say the managers.
They said there was no unnecessary extra cost in having the application processed by a consultant.
