BORER-INFESTED HOUSE

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27690, 21 June 1955, Page 12

BORER-INFESTED HOUSE

REMOVAL TO SITE IN SPRINGS ROAD RESIDENTS PROTEST TO COUNCIL The fate of a borer-infested house moved to a site in Springs road, Hornby, apparently against the provisions of a permit issued by the Paparua County Council, will be discussed by the Hornby County Township Committee. Eight ratepayers in the area last evening attended the meeting of the council in silent support of a complaint made to the council. The council decided that, after the township committee had been given a chance to discuss the matter, the county’s housing committee should consider any recommendation with power to act. The house, now at 124 Springs road, was inspected by the county engineer (Mr G. A. MacFarlane) before its removal to that site, and a permit was issued for the work, provided that all borer infested timber should be removed and destroyed before the house was placed on its present site. The council received a letter from Mr A. R. Freeman, a resident of Springs road, complaining about the arrival of the house. Such a building not only exposed nearby houses to borer infection, but also lowered the value of .the the letter said. A report from an architect, included with-the letter, said that the house was obsolete and not fit for habitation. The building,, on inspection, was found to be generally sound, said Mr MacFarlane, with the exception of the back porch, the scullery, Uxc bathroom and some weatherbeard* frames and ssrshes. “The owner was informed that this defective material must be removed at the old site, and that a locality plan and and specifications of all alterations and additions must be submitted before a permit could be issued,’’ he said. “These were found to comply with the building by-laws, and it was noted that alterations would modernise the appearance. A permit was issued after the owner had agreed in writing to carry out the alterations and additions required.’’

“Impossible to Remove Borer” ' Cr - R- C. Gilberthorpe moved that the permit issued be rescinded and that immediate steps be taken by the council to remove the- house from Spring? road. “I move that knowing fully how much it would mean to our staff and to the owner of the building. The house is definitely detrimental to the district.” It was at least 60 years old, he said, and was definitely dilapidated and “totally out of keeping. with nearby houses. The Hornby Township Committee is trying to Open up that whole area and we have a house at least 60 years old being put there. “It is impossible to remove borer from a house of that age,” he said. I feel it is a very great shame that the permit was issued.” P r - w - G Mr MacFarlane said that the permit was issued with the provision that all infected timber- should be. removed and destroyed before the house was moved from its old Bite. , was not d ° n e.” said Mr W. F. M<?Arthrir. the' chairman. “This man was told that with the amount of work involved in bringing the house up to standard it would be very costly .and possibly not an economic proposition,” said Mr MacFarlane.

“The conditions under which the permit was issued have already been broken,” said Cr. C, A. Campion. Isn t that enoush without anv further ‘how-do-you-do?’ " Cr. H. W. Wilson moved as an amendment to Cr. Gilberthorpe's motion that the matter-be. referred to the Hornby County Township 'Committee. that, work on the house be stopped in the. meantime, and that another expert opinion be obtained. TMs was carried.

Cr. Wilson also moved that any .further applications for removal of houses within the county or into the county should be referred to the council. This, also, was carried.