Harbour Board Will Not Sell Land To Fire Board

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30288, 14 November 1963, Page 19

Harbour Board Will Not Sell Land To Fire Board

The Lyttelton Harbour Board has withdrawn! its offer to sell a 4ft strip of its car park in Oxford terrace to the Christchurch Metropolitan Fire Board. The fire board had asked the harbour board for the land because it wanted to use the strip to give separate access to each of the six firemen’s flats at the Central Fire Station. The flats back on to the parking lot. The harbour board had offered to sell the fire board the strip of land for £6OO. The fire board queried the price and offered to buy the strip at a price fixed by an independent valuer. approved by both boards.

In a letter received by the fire board last evening, the harbour board said it had been found that to move the boundary fence between the fire station and the parking lot 4ft west would reduce the width of the parking lot to less than Hie minimum required because of the present-day length of cars. If the western boundary of the parking lot was moved 4ft west it would cut down the width of the neighbouring property to less than the minimum required by the town-planning regulations for a house property. Therefore, the harbour board said, it withdrew its offer to sell the strip. Mr T. H. Boyle: If this board had accepted the price of £6OO. I take it that the deal would now have been concluded. Mr W. E. Olds: The board considered the price to be ridiculous. Mr Boyle: No sooner is the price questioned than the harbour board finds an excuse to withdraw its offer. Mr Olds: We have got to take the word of the harbour board. They own the landwe cannot dictate to them. Mr Boyle: Yes, but it is a great pity that local bodies can’t get together in a matter like this. “Sorry Situation” Mr Boyle added that it was a sorry situation in a modern fire station that the six flats had only a communal backyard. “The wives have great difficulty in isolating their children when they have contagious illnesses; keeping them in their own areas, and keeping them in the backyard as they can go through other flats and out on to the street—as has happened. It is not conducive to good relations between firemen and their wives,” Mr Boyle said. The chairman (Mr W. R. Campbell) said it was the fault of the firemen’s union. When the plans were shown to union representatives they objected that the sheds in the backyard were too small. The sheds had been made bigger, and now stretched to the back boundary. This made it impossible to put in the path along the rear which would have enabled private access to each backyard, fenced off. by a rear gate off the path. This had been planned. Mr Campbell said that when the union found out that there would be no separate yards with individual entrances, it wanted the sheds made smaller. All the sheds had been built at that time, and one had the roof on. It was found that the cost of knocking down the rear of each brick shed would have been prohibitive.

Mr J, R. Smith said that temporary cross fences, with self-closing gates, had been erected, but the firemen did not like the idea. Mr Boyle: The union wanted the change in the sheds before they were built? Mr Campbell: Yes. I might point out that they also said they did not want our accommodation. Mr Boyle: No doubt things were said that were later regretted. Mr Campbell: I might add that they said the rent was too high. I have never seen better quarters at the rent, but that is another matter. They do not have to live there. Mr Boyle: Nevertheless, the present situation is a great pity. A communal yard for six families with young children is far from suitable. Mr Campbell said it had been agreed to reconsider the situation if the land could not be obtained from the harbour board. The cross fences, with seK-closing

gates, might now be the best solution. Mr Smith said he agreed that the situation was poor. The yard would have to be fenced off to some degree :o give private backyards. The wives had not liked the temporary fence set up and it was held over until negotiations with the harbour board reached a conclusion. The problem would now have to be solved. Mr Olds moved that the harbour board's letter be received and the firemen's union advised of this. “This has been going on for two years and I think both this board and the harbour board should be relieved of any further argument about it” he said. On the motion of Mr N. G. Pickering and Mr Boyle, the board’s building committee was given power to act in dividing the yard by fences, the committee to refer the matter back to the board if necessary.