BUILDING RETURNS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 11829, 10 January 1933, Page 4

BUILDING RETURNS

GISBORNE BOROUGH FIGURES

SLIGIIT FALL IN VALUES

INCREASE IN DWELLINGS

EFFECTS OF SUBSIDY

Though there was a slight fall iu the aggregate value of building operations carried out in Gisborne Borough last year, actually a reduction of £3IOO, there was a very marked increase in the number of dwellings erected, the 1932 total being more than double that of tTie previous year.

A very noticeable feature of the returns is the evidence that tlie Government subsidy on building worn gave the trade great impetus, the value of the work carried out in the last three months of the year (when the subsidy scheme was in operation) being well over half the aggregate for the full 12 months (£24,705 out or £45,060). The value of building work in the borough during each of the past five years has been as follows: 1923 £56,054 1929 ... £106,560 1930 £7O/744 1231 ... £48,160 1932 ' ... £45,060 October proved the best month of last year, so far as the issue of permits was concerned, the value auth- J orised in that period being easily the highest monthly total during the past two years, except for March, 1931, when permits were issued for the construction of the Harbour Board’s new cargo sheds. December, with £3376, comes next on the list of monthly aggregates and then November (£6759). It is thus seen that, while the building subsidy was payable, three out of the four highest monthly totals for the pa=fc two years were recorded. Repair of earthquake damage, ‘removal of parapets and other similar work involved a sum of £15,593 in Gisborne last year. The monthly values of building work authorised during the past three years arc as follows:

PERMITS ISSUED. Permits issued lust year lotuileJ 233. compared with 281 in 1931. 133 in 1930 and 20-3 in 1929. Tlio mouthJy totals ior the pa-'t three years ure jB as follows :

NEW DWELLING?. New dwoliiugs, erected last year showed a very marked increase in _ number, the total being 19 as compared with only nine in 1931 and the aggregate value being £.9607 as against £-5220. A comparison of the two years is as follows:

Mouth. 1932. £ 1931. -(• 1930. £ Jan. 1,983 ;j 97.x 17,i 00 Feb. ... 1.593 2,001 4,188 Mur. . . 1,424 17,103 2,4.31 April ... 2,38-3 1,995 4,922 May ... 3.439 3,982 12,733 June ... 2.010 2.700 5,880 July ... 3.139 4.2D 0,599 Aug. ... 1,818 1.558 4,979 Sept. ... 241 5.6SG 8.085 Oct. ... 2.570 2.145 3.376 Nov. 0,75.9 1.205 3.(71-5 Dee. ... 8,370 1.501 1,160 Totals ... 45,040 48.100 70.74 1

11)3*2 1231 1220 January 12 13 12 I' o'j. ' ... 1J 21 u March 17 • >7 15 April 18 12 11 .May I 43 18 • I u lie 23 *9 •_>p 9 July 17 42 i, Aug. 7 2-5 11 20 2U 11 Oct. or l‘J 10 Nov. 30 17 1*7 Dot:. 30 13 12 Totais23*5 284 135

1932. 1931. N 3. Yal. No Yal. Jan. 0 12-54 — . — Fob. ... 1 090 o 1050 March ... — — 2 1370 April ... 1 190 — ■ May ... 1 075 1 100 June 3 1309 1 750 July 3 1057 .— — Ang. 2 1320 _ — — — Sept. ... 1 211 — Oct. ... — — 1400 Nov. ... 3 1505 — — Dec. •> 790 1 550 Totals ... 19 9007 9 522Q