Council stand on ‘eye sore’ angers couple

Press, 9 May 1984, Page 12

Council stand on ‘eye sore’ angers couple

In Residence

Patricia Herbert

PROPERTY REPORTER

The Chapmans regard the house they bought recently and are now living in as a sad little blot on the landscape, best tom down. The Waimairi District Council, however, thinks that it has historic value and should be preserved. In the short-term at least, the council’s opinion must prevail. The 100-year-old property is listed on Waimairi’s heritage protection register. As much as six months notice must be given before it is demolished. Although it is a commonenough example of early colonial architecture, strong arguments might be put for its retention. Situated at the corner of Prestons Road and Walters Road in Marshland, it incorporates several classic

features; symmetry of design, wrought-iron fretwork above the veranda, kauri timbering, and stone piles. But it is largely obscured behind a tall hedge, it shudders, and shakes whenever trucks pass, it gets little sun, and the facade is chocked by wisteria. The floors dip crazily because the house needs repiling. The roof leaks, there are patches of mould near the ceilings, and gaps in some of the walls. A musty, dank smell redolent of cold, over-cooked cabbage permeates it. More important perhaps, as winter sets in Betty and Barry Chapman are finding it increasingly cold, depressing, and uncomfortable to live in. They are angry at the constraints the council has

placed upon them, especially as they were not fully aware of these when they bought the house. The property includes 6.5 ha of land. They sold a modern home in New Brighton and raised a loan to buy it because they had always wanted to live in the country. Their plan was to put up a new house and to pull down the existing one. A major selling point for them had been that the right to a dwelling on the title was already established; they would not have to prove that it was an economic unit. It all seemed deliciously simple until they applied for a building permit. . . They were told that they would have to wait while alternatives to demolishing the old house were investigated.

Sour news and completely unexpected: “I almost fell oft my chair,” Mrs Betty Chapman recalls. “Then we were both furious.” They understood that the old building was protected and that they had to give notice before knocking it down but, as they did not intend to build on the same site, they did not see why the stalemate should apply to their new home as well. The reason is that, because only one dwelling is allowed on the land, the future of the old house would be jeopardised by the building of a new one. To the Chapmans, however, it seems that the council is being over-fastidious in fulfilling its obligations under the historic places schedule. They are aware that the

cost of construction materials is rising all the time. They are also paying interest on a mortgage they cannot use. “That is what really hurts,” declares Mrs Chapman. “If we had known about the hassles, we would have applied for a permit but not sold our New Brighton place. We would have crouched there for the winter and come out here in spring and started building when the six months were up.” While she supports the preservation of historic properties as a general rule, she cannot see any merit in the old house. “I question its value. I really think it is a bit of a dump,” she explains. She is not alone in her opinion. A friend has offered to start a petition to have it

pulled down. He says that the whole of Marshland would sign it. Everyone thinks it is “just an eyesore.” The inconvenience is not only aesthetic. Betty Chapman wore high heels inside recently and went through the floor-boards in two places. Although they enjoy entertaining, they are too embarrassed to invite friends around. Adding to their frustration is that they have assured the council that whatever obstacles are thrown in their path, they will not restore the old house. “We have told them that whether we have to wait one year or two, we will not change our minds,” Mrs Chapman says. “I don’t think I’m up myself. I just want a warm, comfortable, sunny place to live in.” They were champing at

the bit, Mr Barry Chapman, a builder, is ready to pour the concrete foundations for the new house, and was becoming increasingly impatient with the forced delay. Recently, however, a compromise was reached which has eased the tensions. The council has adopted a more flexible attitude, and told the couple that they may continue building because a permit is in the pipe-line. The “two dwelling — single title” difficulty has been removed by changing the legal description of the old house to "farm accessory building.” As part of the contract, the Chapmans have agreed to make the old house uninhabitable when their new home is completed by disconnecting the services.

The long-term fate of the property has yet to be resolved. The Chapmans have indicated to the council that they will welcome suggestions for the house’s future use, and that they will allow anyone interested in preserving it to remove it from the site. Failing this, they may leave the house where it is although it will be clearly visible from their new home. “We will just plant big trees around it so that we can’t see it,” Betty Chapman says.