Response from Nick Bevin

GOOD AFTERNOON …OR IS IT?

DoC press release announcing the beginning of the demotion of John Scott's building at Aniwaniwa on Monday 5 September. The lies that DoC continue to use to justify their stance need to be highlighted.

Some of my comments on the DoC press release as follows:

1. DoC have not provided any evidence that they have considered "all practical options" .

2. Wairoa District Council did not 'condemn" the building and the council has admitted that the notice they issued to close the building was issued in error and were prepared to remove it.

3. Information obtained under an OIA shows that the " substantial amount of money trying to maintain the building" is less than half the cost of the demolition. DoC had documented an expenditure of $ 82,000 from 2005 to 2011.

4. DoC failed to act on the expert advice given to it from 2005 as how to improve and maintain the building. If they had it would be in far better state than that which they have knowingly allowed it to fall into.

5. The building has been deemed by two independent engineers NOT to be earthquake prone.

6. The actual cost of remedying the building has been shown to be in the order of $ 350,000 to $ 500,000 and NOT the 2010 estimated cost of $ 3 million that DoC continues to maintain.

7. DoC have yet to provide any evidence that they "explored a number of options over the years' to find another use and/or owner for the building.

8. There has not [been] any evidence, seen or heard, to suggest that DoC made any serious and/or sustained attempts to seek "proposals from parties interested in repurposing the building'.

9. The statement that DoC have all the appropriate permits is misleading. They actually do not need any permits (resource consent nor building consent) as the Wairoa District Council have been deficient in executing their mandate under the RMA to take listed heritage Buildings into their district plan where they are afforded much more protection than a Heritage New Zealand listing ever can.

10. The proposed use of timber salvaged from the building is focussed on the 4 x 1 matai ceiling sarking. No calculation has been done as to whether there will be enough material once salvaged for the new building. My calculations show that there will not be enough material that will survive the salvage and remachining that is required.

11. Given the reinforced concrete sub floor and floor structure of the building and its remote location the costs for demolition will inevitably exceed those quoted by DoC. This is tax payers money being spent here. What is the real bill here?