House relocation ban could cost jobs — claim

Press, 16 September 1987, Page 9

House relocation ban could cost jobs — claim

More than 100 people could lose their jobs if the Christchurch City Council goes ahead with proposed changes to its requirement for relocating houses, according to the manager of a Christchurch relocation firm. Mr David Archer said that not only would jobs be lost, but "many good homes with decades of use left in them would be flattened by bulldozers »> The council’s town planjOing committee recently

recommended new criteria for relocating houses, which will be discussed by the full council on Monday. There had been concerns expressed about the city becoming a dumping ground for houses that would not meet the standards of other authorities. The city’s by-law on relocating houses was described at the town planning meeting as “very liberal.” Mr Archer said yesterday that the proposed conditions for relocating

houses, combined with "over-restrictive existing conditions,” would put Christchurch’s several relocating firms out of business.

As spokesman for those working in the industry, he has organised to meet several councillors and council staff today to discuss the changes.

Mr Archer said he was particularly concerned that the people who would be affected by the changes had not been told.

“It’s been done behind

our backs,” he said. “They could put us out of business on Monday.” He agreed that some people were causing the council problems when relocating houses. Some houses were left up on blocks to become an "eyesore.”

But, generally, relocated houses were the best looking houses in the street when completed because of the conditions laid down by the council regarding interior and exterior decorating, he said. tylost houses that were

relocated were in “very good order.” Mr Archer said relocation firms were often saving good houses that would otherwise be knocked down for multimillion dollar commercial developments.

The chairman of the town planning committee, Cr Rex Arbuckle, will meet Mr Archer today.

He said that if he was given some “constructive suggestions” about how the council could control the problems it had with some relocated houses, he

would get the clause on housing removed from the council’s Monday agenda. It would then go back to the town planning committee for discussion. Cr Arbuckle said he did not agree that existing bylaws were already too restrictive. Other councils were much more restrictive than Christchurch City. He said that some relocations of houses had been done very well, but others had caused the council problems. Some houses had been sitting on

blocks for six months. Some people had sold relocated houses without completing them. The Council had to find some way to deal with the problem to be fair to everyone, including neighbours of relocated houses, he said. The council’s buildings engineer, Mr Bryan Bluck, said the council dealt with a “very mixed group” of people relocating houses. While there had been many examples of jobs done well, the quality of work was unsatis-

factory. Many man-hours had been wasted “chasing the rat-bags.” Mr Bluck said the proposed changes would give the sub-committee that considered the relocation of buildings more guidelines.

They were just a “holding mechanism” while the council looked at changing the district scheme to cover relocating houses. That process would take six to eight months and would involve public submissions on the proposals.