Roadside Work

 This Door Must Be Removed Forthwith.


It's A Serious Hazard For

Unsuspecting Stanley

Street Walkers In



Webpage Date:-  Tuesday 5 March 2013

Photos of Countdown Levin 

Supermarket taken on

1 March 2013


Webpage Revised on 15 November 2014


  An emergency exit door, from Levin Countdown Supermarket, opens directly 

onto and over a public footpath. It's all green, a metre wide and

has a, crash or panic bar, fast opening device. 


Above Stanley Street, below the orange Countdown sign, showing the emergency exit door.

Below Bristol Street adjacent to the "Open 7 Days 7am - 10pm" sign.

Rope on footpath shows door opening zone.

The Main Contentions of Those with Specific Viewpoints Over the Door

 The writer's assertionThe Horowhenua District Council's responseCountdown's response to the writers suggestionFire Service's reported claim 
A I'm talking about preventing  a collision on a footpath. When preventing a collision at sea for ships, the A1 rule is to keep a good look-out, at all times, on all vessels, including surfacing submarines, via their periscope and radar. That includes when on the open sea, for all vessels, even with no sight of land or other ships of any size. 

For a sailor, on watch, to go to sleep, it's an extremely serious fault, even in mid ocean, when no ships have been seen for days. However, the crucial, associated point about countdown's Stanley Street emergency exit door is that, it has no observation window, as is usual not to, to watch out for pedestrians. 

Even if it had, it is required to be opened suddenly, without hesitation to prevent a "log jamb" of panicking people who can wedge themselves stuck in the doorway. I've seen two sheep both going for a small door in a  wool-shed after being  shorn, both getting jammed tight and the shearer having to free them. Far worse could happen at an emergency door, if not opened immediately. 

Countdown, the fire service and the HDC are seemingly willing to trust in luck that the door will not open onto an item or a person in an emergency or, that a heavy electric mobility scooter either stops the door from opening, hits an exiting shopper or slams the door in the face of one. The footpath's pedestrians have a far greater right to the footpath than the opening door has. However, when ships are sailing, that are worth tens of millions of dollars, plus their cargo, it's no place to trust in luck to avoid a collision. People are precious too, such as a lone walker on the Stanley Street footpath. Luck trusting is about superstition, just as the people officially associated with the door appear to display.

The door is needing to be removed and a new one set in a white painted porch, free of superstition. It needs an automatic catch to hold it open, after emergency opening, as well. It's simply about any footpath primarily  being for collision free walking. Luck trusting is irrelevant here, in well educated, moden New Zealand.
No one else has complained about the door. They will not respond to my further emails about the door but only file them, since they have said there is nothing wrong with the door to them, as it has a permit. The MP for Otaki, Hon Nathan Guy, has written to the Horowhenua District Council (HDC) CEO. He responded that the Fire Service approved the door before building started, which seems to be used by the HDC to close the matter. The HDC suggest that I appeal directly to countdown.   They don't seem to want to discus the issue because two posted paper letters have been sent to the CEO of Progressive enterprises, the parent company of countdown, without a reply to the writer, M.R.Tingey

"Countdown Levin - this door meets the provisions of the building laws of the day the building was signed off. As it is only an emergency exit door, it is permissible for the door to open over the footpath. The footpath is wide enough to allow this."

(Via a letter from the Horowhenua District Council, 126 Oxford Street Levin, dated 27 November 2014 and headed and ended as follows.

Dear Mr Tingey

Countdown Exit Door 

Your further enquiry to Council on this matter of 27 November 2014 refers.

We advise that the NZ Fire Service has informed Council on 1 October 2014 the following: "Countdown Levin - this door meets ...." [as copied above. The letter ends with....] Please note we conclude this matter to be closed.

Yours faithfully


Mike Lepper

Customer & Regulatory Services Manager 






The door must be removed immediately and another must be fitted inside an enclosed porch. The reason is that a pedestrian on Stanley Street's adjacent footpath could be hit by it or, a mobility scooter could directly hit the first exiting shopper or, it cause the door to, when hit. It's a realistic potential danger because it would open suddenly and quickly without hesitation. This is not the case with a non-emergency door which, conversely, might have a glass window and a handle to allow the opener to wait for a seen pedestrian, or mobility scooter rider, to pass.

The crash bar or panic bolt, that's fitted, is designed not to be restrained, but to be just pushed against, for the easiest, fastest, full opening in an emergency. That's even by an unconscious person falling on it. They were invented after the 1883 Victoria Hall disaster of Sunderland, England, in which 180 children died. Yet, 605 died in the 1903 Chicago, USA, Iroquois Theatre fire disaster, where locked gates blocking exits.

Everyone knows that such an emergency door's opening path, over a footpath, is a danger area for both pedestrians and the shoppers, who exit there in an emergency. Nevertheless, stubborn, potentially criminal negligence, by those in authority has been partly hidden by their pathetic excuses. It's as if to put the blame on the injury victims, should the worst case scenario occur of a collision on the footpath, as the door suddenly opens.

The fact that this danger area has no warning notices, as is usually seen, confirms this. Should they be fitted, it would also confirm to all that the door is an emergency exit and not a tradesperson's access. Such emergency doors are expected to have an enclosed porch to open into. This prevents injury to those on a public road's footpath. Alternatively, the door could be blocked for, or slammed shut onto those exiting, by temporary footpath items or activities. It's better to write these comments before an accident, than for a Coroner to, after one.   

The door has a building permit, that's backed by the Fire Service not objecting to it when approving the building's plan before building work started. It can stay. A Council Officer maintained that the situation is like when a pedestrian must watch out for more common footpath hazards like a suddenly opening car door over one.The door is approved by the Horowhenua District Council and is covered by a building warrant of fitness that's displayed in the store. The door will stay. It will not be removed. This  statement was given, by telephone, to the writer, by Countdown's Wellington Area Manager in early 2014. 

From Safety Officer, Mr Kerry Stuart of the Fire Service in Wellington, as remembered from a phone conversation with him, on the morning of 1 December 2014...... The door has an hydraulic damper and spring loaded control device that prevents the door slamming  suddenly shut once opened and also stops a sudden opening for the initial 150 cm of the opening travel at the outer edge. The door will automatically close. The door is considered safe.


 CThe majority of Levin residents, by far, wouldn't complain, if the door was removed and a white painted porch were to be installed, with a door put inside it, that doesn't open over the footpath.No specific information obtained in this regard.No specific information obtained in this regard.No specific information obtained in this regard. 


The Relevant Legislation


1 "Means of escape from fire for building"

2.   Building Act 2004 Interpretation



Removal Of The Door and Putting a New Door Inside an Always Open Porch. 

Twelve Pros and Cons Plus Cons Rebuttals  


Assertion NumberAssertions or "Pros" as to why the door must go and an open porch establish with a new door inside it.Rejections of Assertions or "Cons"Conclusive Rebuttals of the Assertion Rejections 
1Stanley Street pedestrians could be knocked over by the emergency door's fast opening.An emergency is extremely rare and not worth any alarm over walkers getting hurt, just as the door opens. Very few people walk there. It's safe as it is.We all must comfortably agree that, while it might be an unlikely coincidence, it still is possible and should be avoided by reasonable means. The standard remedy is seen at Levin's The Warehouse, at Bristol Street and New World supermarket, at Salisbury Street. Emergency exit doors are in porches there. They are both for double opening doors but a single door presents a similar danger when opened suddenly. The Countdown door should follow these examples. 
2If the door was being opened as a mobility scooter was travelling east, the exiting shopper could have the door slammed hard back in their face and body and possibly cut him or her as the door closed towards the frame.Mobility scooter riders are required to ride with full care and attention.This possibility cannot be discounted. It fully demands, on it's own, that the door be immediately removed and that a new one, in a permanently open porch, is fitted. Mobility scooter riders also need to read a new warning sign to ensure that they keep well clear of the open porch to avoid hitting exiting shoppers who may be in haste and distressed.
3It's the Local Council's job to keep our footpaths safe from unexpected hazards.Pedestrians must realise that footpaths are prone to hazards like cyclists on them and opening car doors. They just must be careful. Pedestrians do take care but the door is a potential, unexpected, sudden whacking device that can open at any time. It's also apparently officially approved while carelessly opening car doors and normal bikes ridden on footpaths are definitely not. Countdown have been officially awarded a continuous right to a part of the pedestrians' footpath to the detriment of pedestrian safety. The door is allowed to open over the pavement at any time, without hesitation.  Emergency exit doors are an obvious hazard when opening which must be made safe in a porch to prevent their opening over a footpath, as at Stanley Street. 
4A hazardously opening car door over a footpath is not able to be reasonably used to justify the similar opening of an emergency exit door.    Pedestrians are expected to keep a good look out for suspicious doors of all kinds that could open at any moment. If they are unable to look after their own safety then they should have a companion to prevent their collision with an obvious object such as the normal looking door that is naturally expected to open at some stage.Some pedestrians are blind and are helped by a pavement's plastic lumpy pads to warn of hazards, but putting an unpredictable hazard in their way is disrespectful of their deserving assistance. A porch to keep the opening door off the footpath is not too much to ask in support of the blind. They have a hard enough time without extra hazards waiting for them.
5The fire service should never have approved the door and may not have, if the door was considered not their responsibility to comment on in the first place.  The fire service were sent a copy of the plans to approve and they did. They evidently did not specify that a porch must be created to prevent the door hitting a pedestrian on the foot path. It is against reasonable conjecture that the fire service would approve a door that could injure a pedestrian during its intended rapid opening without hesitation. If they were to do so, they would know that they would be implicated in a pedestrian's misfortune. Pedestrians do have some rights. People just can't expect that, unlike a car on a road, a pedestrian can be hit and it be blamed on the pedestrian's carelessness. The footpath belongs to the pedestrian, as the expected protected user. This is why they're not supposed to continually walk on the road, in a town with footpaths. It's time that pedestrians were treated as protected and not insulted as if fully responsible for whatever might injure them.  Who ever finally approved the door, took the interests of the supermarket as if superior, while those of the pedestrians were insulted. It's a footpath, not a door path. Victim blaming is shameful. It's a pedestrians right not an occasional privilege to use a footpath. Any other user, whether on mobility scooter, as a  postal cyclist, a car door or emergency door opener or a pram pusher, must give way to a pedestrian. However, an emergency door opener must never give way to anything, so these doors must be in a porch to achieve that.      
6The large green wall of Countdown is better to look less impressive and less uniform with a white porch for the emergency exit door to open into, in the prior interests of pedestrian safety.The porch would trap litter and be less attractive architecturally and be unwarranted when so few people ever walk there. Sometimes the architectural features take precedence over extremely unlikely hazards associated with a hardly ever used emergency door which can open over a rarely used footpath. The door may go for many years or decades without being used, except during annual testing. It is approved, so legal.The door is a legal requirement. It should be the best that it can be, especially when below such an extreme form of company branding to suggest enormous excellence.
7The current bad situation is tolerated by the general public because people have a dangerous tendency to follow, mindlessly, like sheep who can even follow each other over a cliff. The fact that the door is wrong, is rejected by many because humans can often have an illogical liking for the familiar and a dislike for safer things that are different. This is accentuated by signals of authority such as the huge letters for countdown above the door. It's backed by millions of advertising and store marketing dollars to attract our loyalty towards countdown. We eat unmarked vegetables from the store because we trust its name. It's time for clear, deeper thinking. Exiting shoppers, in an emergency, do not expect to cause injury to pedestrians outside. They can at present.   The door was considered by experts to be appropriate. Arguments against the door are emotive and verging on the hysterical. The pedestrian count on the footpath is perhaps less than ten a day at times. The chances of someone being hit by the door, as it opens, in a perhaps once in ten year emergency event, is so small as to be negligible. This way of viewing the risk points to a blase mentality where if a person was hit they would be labelled monumentally unlucky. Yet the chances of winning New Zealand's Lotto are similar and do not deter the enthusiastic gambling public. Our New Zealand Labour Government, Union Movement legacy en-rooted society, is based on the protection of the individual without prior consideration of corporate giants' easy ride. Australian industry and public places safety standards are often better than New Zealand's. A good example is how New Zealand school children are seen standing out on raised traffic islands with stop sign poles at school-side pedestrian crossings. Their observing teachers stand closer to the footpath in safety. In Australia, older retired folk, in wide bright hats and high visibility jackets, walk out to the middle of the zebra crossing with a bright coloured flag which they wave, motor racing fashion above their head,  at the oncoming cars. The point is, they do not let children be put at risk. What if a fleeing car, during a Police chase, doesn't stop for a child's aluminium  stop sign pole here? Their wrists would be broken. Often the paint on the stop disc is totally faded to grey. The moving flag is more eye catching, as demonstrated at the end of a motor racing circuit event. It's children that are needing protection at the school crossings. Yet some are put in harms way with their stop signs here, while in Australia, it's retired adults who only let children cross when they feel safe, while in the centre of the road with their waving flag. This example shows how our thinking can get distorted by what we are familiar with as ideal. It's likewise at the emergency exit door.  
8The old, tried and true, motto of "Safety First" is very applicable here. It means that the door must be made safe by opening inside a porch, as a prior issue, compared with the secondary glamour of the green, smooth-walled building with flush green door. If we learn nothing else from the 19 March 2003 invasion of Iraq, by USA and the UK, on the pretext of there being weapons of mass destruction and to free the Iraq people, it is that the glamour and technological magnificence of USA didn't make that preemptive, illegal action correct. The safety of individuals was treated as secondary, irrespective of promises to the contrary, such as it's vague aim of protecting them from the ravages of terrorism and a supposedly dictatorial tyrant.   Safety first is already applied here in that it's an extra wide footpath with the door being extra large at 2m x 1m and obviously an emergency exit because it has no outside lock or handle of any kind. If people do not know that doors can open outwards, especially when the hinge knuckles are visible, then they should always keep a metre away from building walls.We don't expect to see a group of runners on a dedicated motorway. They are banned there, together with bicycles. Correspondingly, many things are banned on footpaths. Walkers, who already have to endure the often speeding mobility scooter on footpaths, are justified in claiming back unfairly jeopardised parts of footpaths. They deserve to be 100% safe. Local government administrators have treated the safety of this footpath worse than would be tolerated in a zoo enclosure, housing an exotic, expensive animal, such as an endangered variety of leopard. It's appalling that this web page even needs to exist. It demonstrates the reverse nature of corporate grandeur. It's where, instead of their excellence being totally focused on keeping the public safe, they're content, it seems, to allow a dangerous green door to look at it's aesthetic, superficial best. Priority is given to its being in line and blending with  the huge green wall with huge orange lettering. That's without recognising how it poses a constant risk to  trusting walkers beside it.   It hasn't even got a warning notice to upset the total green effect. That is a scandal. 
9The door should be considered as a potential human whacking device. Exiting shoppers, in an emergency, would pose little danger as soft clothed bodies, to a passing pedestrian, if coming from a recessed porch. At present, the solid door would hit them, which is heavy and has sharp edges.This would be made worse in a strong wind, when opened fully back. It would slam closed as a further danger to pedestrians.      People coming out, via the emergency door, at present, could also hurt passing pedestrians and perhaps even cause some of them to fall to the ground. Nevertheless, most people are friendly and considerate and would pose no more risk than is experienced on a busy city footpath where people pass each other at a fast pace.Exiting shoppers could be in a panic, be choking on smoke or be injured from falling stock in a severe earthquake. It would not be like the foot traffic of a normal busy city footpath at all. There could be a power-cut during a severe earthquake, to compound matters further, at night. There should be an emergency light on the outside wall above the door too. 

It's obviously a loophole in our law that allows a dangerous door like this to be free of specific nationwide footpath safety regulations. It should be stated that emergency exit doors must not open over roadside or exclusive walking route, public footpaths. Such situations are about what is best in the worst case scenario. That is, if the footpath had a stream of pedestrians on it, four people wide. A porch guarantees that pedestrians will not disrupt the opening door. There must be only one test question of, will the door open easily, if the footpath is packed with pedestrians. The answer is obviously "NO". This automatically signals that there must be a porch. It could not be more simple than that. Why then, do we put up with a "She'll be right mate" attitude? It's because we tolerate a second best approach, owing to countdown's hypnotic trance effect on us. It's as if we're dumbed-down and compliant puppets by their constant advertising that makes us trust them like a lamb trusts it's mother.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 The door came up to nationwide standards at the time of building. Nothing can be done about it via the law. Only the supermarket can make it safer.It's obvious that the door, from that approach, would not be allowed under today's regulations. It might have to be in a porch to be approved these days in a new building. This possibly exposes the truth that the door could be improved just by applying the new regulations. The new regulations should apply to all emergency exit doors. Most people would strongly agree.  That being the case, why is Countdown stubbornly opting for the glamourous, less conspicuous look, rather than the full display of emergency exit door excellence. That's including warning signs, a porch with white paint and an outside emergency light, regardless of it being seemingly legal at present, according to the Horowhenua District Council. Yet the Council are supposed to always keep road users safe with excellent public roads.  This must surely include the footpaths and pedestrians as well.
11There is no emergency door signage, of any kind, to inform the public that the door could explosively burst open at any time. There should also be a "do not block" message. At present, it doesn't look  much like a typical emergency door at all. In fact it could be mistaken for the normal rear access for tradesmen or merchandise suppliers and those who could work better with road access in the bulk store during the long opening hours. The truth is, of course, that during a dangerous person incident, the whole shop could be cleared of customers via that door. Such potential situations and scenarios must be considered. The current door would certainly not get full marks for all aspects of emergency exit provision. There urgently needs to be full emergency door signage there. It should be the law.The door and its  surrounds are legal and approved under the current building warrant of fitness certificate, on display in the shop, near the public notice board.We could ask why there are no warning notices to tell the public that it is an emergency door, so that they would not be surprised if one hundred people suddenly streamed out on to the footpath. We could also ask why the door has no "do not block" notice. This is essential for when an emergency door is not in a porch and can be easily blocked by a parked mobility scooter for instance. With no warning signs,  a person stopping their scooter in front of the door to talk to a friend, could be forgiven but might also get tipped off if a strong person was exiting in panic. An injured person could come out of the door but without the signage, they may not be seen as such, for urgent help. With signage, there would be a generally learned message over time, to be aware of an injured person exiting or that shouting might not be just young people being rowdy. Emergency services could also be aware of the door and be there more quickly if needed via the standard signage, as seen at The Warehouse. 
12The fact that there's no emergency door signage tells another story. That is, how it could be to deter opportunist thieves from having a waiting car there. It would be a sure, fast, clear route for a grocery snatcher friend to escape apprehension in the getaway vehicle. It also could be to just look more impressive. The huge plain green wall and flush green door gives the gigantic orange countdown sign above, more grandeur and impact. It also stops puzzled people asking that, if it is an emergency exit door, why is it not in a porch to protect pedestrians from being hit and to ensure that the door is not blocked by a motor bike or mobility scooter. If warning notices are not seen, then the reasonable assumption is that it's not an emergency exit. Waring signs are a widespread standard for all emergency exit doors. The substandard situation at this exit is unconscionable.
If the law demanded warning signs they would have been installed. There is nothing illegal about the exit area. The public should not be worried or complain. The building has been there for nearly ten years with no reported difficulties owing to lack of signage. The supermarket is free to add them if it wants to. 

It's time that the seriousness of his emergency exit area, without signage or a porch of safety, was treated as a public emergency. It should not just  be assumed public knowledge that there's a door there with obvious hinges and so able to be opened and always avoided by pedestrians. It's an emergency exit. Everyone must know this at all times. We must not let countdown's clean and green company image desire dominate the safety essentials. The uncluttered plain green wall and strongly blending green door is used  to enhance the impact of their orange lettering and white opening hours messages. We deserve this extra "Emergency exit, do not block", signage as basic good public relations and good customer care from countdown. The absence of outside signage at this emergency exit signals that something is wanting to be hidden. That includes the obviousness of the need for the door to be removed and to be put inside a porch. Action time has arrived. This is a corporate giant wanting to look clean, green and working for the best interests of sustainable growth and prosperity. However, it's without a priority of safety for all. We know that a cruise liner must have the cluttered look of it's sides lined with life boats, to be extra safe, regardless of improvements, since the doomed Titanic, last century. We'd be shocked if an ocean cruise liner had no large life boats because inflatable rafts looked neater. Emergency exit doors cannot be hidden, trivialised or compromised by not being in a porch to prevent footpath traffic problems. The grand green look of the building must not be put before public safety on the footpath. A white porch, with warning signage, at Stanley Street, Levin, for countdown's emergency exit, would disrupt the clean green, uncluttered look at present, but for an excellent, admirable reason. This is what "safety first" and "putting people first" really means. There just needs to be a sea change of public support. Australia has different supermarket layouts, from a more effective public lobby of consumers. New Zealand can learn. For instance, from their separate alcohol sales areas and entrance doors whereas, Levin Countdown's main entrance is partly dominated by alcohol display.


Such issues alert us to how our tolerance of nuclear weapons is also based on blind trust that ignores the facts of the matter, as is happening at the emergency exit. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki experiences dictate immediate abolition of all nuclear weapons. Yet city populations, who are intended for instant  vapourization, by hidden submarine based nuclear arsenals, remain mostly silent. They appear more like compliant sheep, in a meat works paddock, than alert, thinking, intelligent, self respecting, planet-guarding human beings, with an active strong protest voice. I hope this webpage will also inspire constructive, positive activism for prompt global abolition of nuclear weapons. The admirable Red Cross Movement promotes this view via ICAN.



Here are the facts

1. A nearly 4 metre wide public footpath with an outward opening door.

2.Presumed to be alright by the Horowhenua District Council, after appeals to them for warning signage.

3. Only a footpath matter. Pedestrians are put at risk from a known, yet hidden, hazard that's trivialised.

4. A child's, elderly person's or anyone's injuries, from the opening door, would be mainly the fault of Council Staff.
5. Independent inspectors of buildings are under Horowhenua District Council control in Levin.


Brief Details 

1.It's a nearly four metres wide public footpath with a presumably low pedestrian count.
2. My earlier request for just warning signs on the door and footpath were rejected. I now realise that I should have asked that the door be removed from the beginning of my safety appeals. 

3.The building's warrant of fitness is not the issue. It's a strictly footpath matter.
4.If a child, elderly or any person was to be injured by the always rapidly opening, panic bar fitted door, few would have sympathy for Horowhenua District Council Staff, who permitted such a predictable eventuality, on the public footpath.
5. The Wellington City Council have given full assurance that, while they supervise independent inspectors of buildings, it is, nevertheless, the Horowhenua District Council who is in charge of their performance in Levin. (As per emails from the Wellington City Council Building Compliance and Consents', Sue Bai, in February 2013)


Further Details

1.Levin Countdown Supermarket's, Stanley Street Emergency Exit Door, opens onto and over the  public  footpath. It has since 2006. A 2009 Google Street View shows it as well.

2.The door would open explosively. Its panic bolt, or crash bar, opening device, would cause it to burst open, uncontrollably, with strong force, in an emergency, as the first person keenly pushes it, with possibly others close behind. They could be in a panic and act irrationally.

3.Should a child, in a pram or pushchair, be passing, at the moment of opening, they could be seriously injured. Likewise, so could anybody there at that moment. An electric mobility scooter there could jam it.

4.The fact that it's a little used footpath and a rare potential event, is beside the point. Proper emergency exits are the minimum expectation, in a civilized town. Such doors must open into a porch, that's well set back from the outside wall of the building.

5.Walkers are prime users of public roads. They should not be considered as insignificant, compared to the motoring public. 

6.Walkers are primarily entitled to have safe walking zones on public roads. Historically, walkers are more entitled to use a public road than motorists, unless it's a marked motorway. There is no excuse, whatsoever, for putting pedestrians at unsuspected, dire risk of injury. They currently are, when walking past the Countdown fire exit door, in Stanley Street, Levin.

7. Horowhenua District Council, Regulatory Services Manager, Mr. Mike Lepper, suggests that the door risk situation is like a parked car door opening and so not a unique problem. Pedestrians, he said, are required to take care and I agree with that. However, car doors are supposed to always open under full control, as is intended by by the makers and our Police. This especially applies to the driver's door. The intention of the emergency exit door, is that it opens suddenly without control or restraint. Everyone, in authority, would agree. Otherwise, hesitation in opening, could cause people to fall over one another and panic, especially in the dark, without street lights. 

8.This page will hopefully further alert the Horowhenua District Council to act promptly and correctly.

9. Please phone or email, or both, to alert this local authority, in charge of the footpath, asking them to kindly please recommend urgent removal of the door. It's been logged into their system as Customer Request Number 49713 : 2014  to quote, when phone calling for progress.

10. At present, Countdown Levin could be relying on the Horowhenua District Council's tolerance and acceptance of the door, as normal. This would change with the supermarket's and Horowhenua District Council's realising the intolerable hazards of the door and appreciating the benefits of removing it. The door should open into a permanently open porch to protect pedestrians and prevent blockage of the door. Footpaths are kept safe by the local council.


Contact details of the local authority 

Horowhenua District Council

126 - 148 Oxford Street

Private Bag 4002 


Email address:- 

Telephone Number (06) 366 0999

Fax (06) 366 0977





Website compiled by  Murray Richard Tingey,  Levin,  New Zealand

Known as Richard Tingey


May Peace Prevail On Earth