Otago bans new homes from using Oamaru stone

Email
Print

Otago bans new homes from using Oamaru stone

3News NZ

By Dave Gooselink

Oamaru stone, the building blocks of some the South Island's grandest old constructions, has now been outlawed for use in new Central Otago homes.

The Otago District Council has caused outrage, ruling that the distinctive creamy-coloured limestone is just too bright and reflective.

A Cromwell house built with the stone won Home Of The Year two years ago - now it wouldn't get off the ground. The property's designer says it is ideal for house cladding in the region.

"It's a good application, it's got thermal qualities, and it blends in with the environment," says Brian Archer.

Tradesmen and homeowners want Oamaru stone reinstated as a legal building material.

"I think it's just another example of bureaucrats going crazy, with very little, or any justification for it," says resident Chris Hill.

The distinctive limestone is cut from the hills above Weston, just inland from Oamaru. There is a good 1000 years left in the North Otago quarry which is the sole supplier of Oamaru stone. It is popular right across the country, as well as being exported to Australia and North America.

Quarry owner Bob Wilson is bewildered an Otago council would ban stone from its own region.

"It just doesn't register with us, because that's what people are looking for," says Mr Wilson, owner of Parkside Quarries. "I've seen lots of shots of the landscapes in Otago where you get the lovely rushes and that sorts of colourings, and it blends in beautifully."

He has had support from across the country.

"They are local materials, they come out of that land, so I can't really see why they wouldn't be a suitable context for a rural landscape," says Ashley Hide, Christchurch architect.

Opponents are appealing the changes and hope their arguments won't hit a brick wall.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

10/11/2009 9:56:13 p.m.

Lyreva Rhodes wrote:

Don't build with something solid like natural brick, build with a Hardies product that will start leaking in 10 years so that the home owners can then make the government pay for the governments own bureaucratic nonsense! In a country with leaky houses I'd think solid brick houses would be being encouraged! Thinking people... thinking!!!

7/08/2009 10:31:23 a.m.

Anthemios and Isidoros wrote:

Oamaru stone is a very beautiful building material, I cannot understand what drove the council to ban the stone. Perhaps they like ugly buildings.

6/08/2009 11:17:16 a.m.

Carol Skipworth wrote:

How rediculous. I saw an interview with one of the worlds top scientists within the last 2 or 3 months on one of our news programmes. The scientist advocated that the reflective qualities of white, if used in roofing, housing and roading, could dramatically reduce the effects of global warming. If you can find a copy of this interview, it would be a perfect argument for more extensive use of Oamaru Stone.

5/08/2009 8:39:59 p.m.

Ray wrote:

I presume it was the Central Otago District Council that made this decision. I thought the Dunedin council was bad enough, but this takes the cake.

5/08/2009 8:22:07 p.m.

H Tudor wrote:

Does it reflect any more the road markers ? Why not ban those. I see tonight our supermarket has started charging for plastic bags. To save on polution perhaps they should close the carparks and let you walk home with the trolley? Perhaps they should lead by example and remove the stone from all public buildings.

5/08/2009 7:50:11 p.m.

Rick wrote:

Oamaru stone is a stunning NZ cladding feature which would make any homeowner proud.Obviously the council powers of be are trying to create barriers in the building industry.If they were self employed they may think differently.

5/08/2009 7:16:19 p.m.

wolfman wrote:

Typical Kindergarten Politicians, Has a Councilor there have interests in another cladding company? This is what is wrong with this Nanny Country, dumb Politicians.

5/08/2009 7:15:33 p.m.

duane trotter wrote:

Dissapionting to read this as it is another example of a decision made by the local body govt. It is unfortunate that persons namely men (because it is a no women allowed club) make decisions based on ther penis size. Smaller the penis the more pathetic the decision made. Gee if they tried hard enough they could referee an All Blacks and Springboks test match and get there ball back after the match.
Where else would you expect to see Oamaru stone duh Oamaru. Obviously the Council are not making enough money out of this, hey why not subdivide? double, tripple, even quadruple the revenue of the pre-existing plot of land.
It is unfortunate that Council is run by a pathetic group memebers of society. What has been presented in AK is great as this quarters the amount of people required to do the same job, go the Super-City. What will these people do? they will do fine as they were spending more time on their hobby/second income than their real job. Don't forget the regular trek to the coffee machine, shoot the breeze etc etc until luch time.
I could go on but hey you got the picture.

GET A REAL JOB.

5/08/2009 7:11:56 p.m.

d holland wrote:

Words fail me! I suppose glass windows will be next or filled swimming pools. Perhaps the council should put forward the name of the brains trust that instigated this travesty, and how it even came about, but then again, there are people out there who want to put brassieres on cows. How do these people get into these positions?.

5/08/2009 7:11:17 p.m.

Bill Clarkson wrote:

A decision like this defies belief!!