3 days ago
Cottage dream turns to ‘misery'
A distraught woman fears her rebuilt Central Otago gold rush-era cottage will be reduced to rubble after it came to the attention of council bureaucrats.
Roxburgh East resident Lou Farrand said she was facing fines she could not pay, the cost of securing a retrospective building consent, or losing the "dream" stone cottage she bought nine years ago and preserved.
"I didn't expect a damehood but thought they might have said thank you for looking after it," Mrs Farrand, 76, said.
"If they'd just come to visit and had a cuppa we could have sorted it out without all this threatening me with fines.
"I just love the place, but it has caused me more misery than I've ever had in my life."
The work done at the cottage came to the Central Otago District Council's attention years after it was completed and, the council said, only when Mrs Farrand complained about neighbouring dogs barking that would have affected her ability to rent out the property.
Lou Farrand, of Crossan's Cottage, in East Roxburgh, holds a letter from the Ministry of Justice regarding a fine from the Central Otago District Council relating to work done on the cottage, which was built in 1865 and preserved in 2015 by Mrs Farrand. Inset (top): The cottage's restored interior and (bottom) exterior.
The council, for its part, said Mrs Farrand bought a "deteriorated and fallen down" property, in Roxburgh East Rd — and then rebuilt it without a building consent.
Mrs Farrand said in December last year she got a phone message while at a Christmas event from a council enforcement officer.
"I felt sick — there had been no prior contact," she said.
The message said she had made extensive modifications to the building and would have to seek retrospective permissions for them.
Council regulatory services manager Lee Webster said the council issued a notice to fix under section 40 of the Building Act that gave Mrs Farrand two options to remedy the non-compliance — either apply for a certificate of acceptance, essentially a retrospective building consent for the works, or remove the unconsented building works.
Mrs Farrand said removing the unconsented building works, including her new replacement roof, macrocarpa ceiling and a wall removed when the cottage was used by a blacksmith, would mean demolishing the building.
Mrs Farrand said she could not afford to pay fines for non-compliance or to engage a structural engineer to gain the certificate of acceptance the council sought.
"I wish I'd died [before hearing from the council] because I'm quite old and I would have kept my dream and not be going through this."
Mr Webster said a visit to the property had not been necessary as the council had details regarding the unconsented building works from Mrs Farrand herself.
Photos she posted to social media showed the building was in a collapsed state, consisting of only about half the exterior walls and no internal structure or roof, he said.
Mrs Farrand said she bought the property after selling her Auckland property in 2015 and started her remedial work in September that year. It was finished nine months later.
At least 90% of the original walls were still standing when she bought the property, she said.
She had first seen the cottage from the road.
She viewed it as a "poor little darling" and had hoped someone would fix it up.
When she found it was for sale, Mrs Farrand took up the challenge herself.
The roof and ceiling needed replacing, along with one wall that had been removed so horses could access a forge when the building housed a blacksmith's shop.
The East Roxburgh cottage as it was when built. PHOTOS: JULIE ASHER & SUPPLIED
There were no internal walls and it had been left an open space with the original fireplace at one end and a coal range at the other, she said.
Mr Webster said the council looked forward to hearing from Mrs Farrand and preferred not to have to issue infringement notices "and that Ms Farrand worked with council to address the non-compliance".
"However, if Ms Farrand cannot afford to pay the infringement, this would be referred to the courts, with the additional court costs, too.
"If Ms Farrand speaks with council, we can discuss a payment plan, negating the need to refer this to the courts to recover these costs."
However, Mrs Farrand said she had already been fined $1000 by the council because she had not returned some forms they had requested. She had not paid the fine and it had now been passed on to the Ministry of Justice, from whom she had received a letter to which she had not responded.
The cottage was originally built by the Crossan family in 1865.
The older Crossan children arrived in Roxburgh from Scotland and, with the help of Chinese neighbours, built the stone cottage.
Eventually the rest of the family — mother, father and 11 siblings — lived at the property.
