BREACH AKAROA BOROUGH BY-LAWS.
AKAROA BOROUGH CUONOIL
v. C. W. LEETE.
The first case for the alleged breach of the Akaroa Borough Council by. law, No. 2, relating to buildings and their erection was heard on Wednesday at the Akaroa Court, before T. A. B, Bailey, Esq, S. M , when Charles Walker Leete was charged tbat he committed a breach of the Akaroa Borough by-law, No. 2, Clause 32, in that ho did not deposit at the office of <h - Council fourteen days previous notice in writing describing a building bo proposed to erect, with detailed plans and elevations in ink or colour showing the position, boundaries, and details of the parcel of land upon which the said building was proposed 'to be erected, and that he started to erect, and was erecting, the building, Mr J. H. Williams appered for defendant.
The Town Clerk, Mr G. W, Thomas, prosecuted. ' He read Clause 32 of the bylaw under which the charge was made. It is as follows:— '"' "Wo person shall erect a new building or. add to an existing building unless or untill he shall have deposited at office of the Council fourteen days previous notice in writing describing each proposal building addition or altpralions together with detailed plans and elevations in ink or colour showing the position. Boundaries abuttals of the parcel of land upon"which the said building is erected or is proposed to be erected, and such plans and elevations shall be accompanied by a specification showing the materials of which and febe - manner in Which the proposed building alteration or addition is to be erected."
> Mr Thomas said the building bad been started without submitting plans in compliance with the conditions laid down in the by law. On oath h9 stated defendant had. started to erect the building about a week before the plan was submitted to tbe Council. The Council on Maroh 18 received the plan, and it was referred to the Council's building committee to report. At that meeting he was ordered by the Council to make a complaint .gainst defendant, and the complaint was laid accordinglyagainstdefendant.
To the Bench: There were no specifications acciompanying tbe plan. Tbe Magistrate ; It is laid down in the by-laws that specifications shall be submitted with the plansTo Mr Williams; Tbe plans were submitted to the Building Committee on March 18, and when the< Council met on March 27 the building committee reported that they did not approve of tbe plans. He would not state on what grounds the Building Committee objected to the plans submitted. The Council had received the plans, and had replied to tbe application on March 27. A resolution had been passed previously in the Council that notice and plans of building must be given to tbe Council in compliance with the bylaw, or action would be taken. There had been a number of breaches "of this clause of the'by-law, and the Council had decided to take action. Tbe plans of several buildings had already been approved by the Council. Mr Williams : Are the external walls of these buildjngs to be built of brick, stone or cement as specified by the bylaws.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr Williams said that be would like.to bring under the Bench's notice the'loose way the by-laws had been drawn up. The bylaws specified that the external wall of all buildings erected in the borough must bo built of brick, concrete or stone. It ap peared to him that the person who drafted the Akaroa Borough Bylaws took for bis guide the by laws made by tbe Christchurch City Council, and, in doing so, did not provide that [ certain provisions should only apply to one area. He referred to clause 283, which directed that every external wall must be built of brick, stone or concrete. Under clause 50 of the Christchurch City Bylaws every building to be erected within " the outer area," and standing as to any point thereof within fifteen feet of the nearest part of any other building or structure shall as to and regards the external wall or parapet on the side nearest such building or structure be constructed of brick, stone or concrete. The by law went on to say that buildings could be constructed of wood,
For Chronic Ohe>st Complaints, VVjj ds' Great Peppermint Cure, 1/6, 2/6
subject to tbe forpgoiog provisions. He thought there was a great differ enca between the requirements of the City and of tbe Borough, and he waconfident that this could not hara
haya been generally known, r.% thee* were cases in which buildings had|on«" erected in tbe borough without any brick wall at all.
Mr Williamg then went on to show that clauses 32 and 278 of tbe by laws conflicted one with the other in that in clause 32 it was stated that the pans of a building must be deposited in the Council Office for fourteen days, and in clause 278 the time mentioned was only four day 3. The wording was practically the game in both clause?, with the exception of time specified. The Magistrate said the clauses were practically the same, except for the time mentioned, and clause 278 mentioned severer penalties. Mr Williams submitted only one of these clauses wa3 necessary, and section 278 was the right one, aa it came under tbe building clauses of the bylaw. He thought the Council should get an Order-in Council altering the by la.w, and deleting one of these clauses. He considered that it was absurd for the Council to make bylaws, which ware framed and identical with those of the Christchureh City Council's inner area, He understood the Council bad given Mr Leete notice to remove tbe building in fourteen days. He admitted his client had not submitted his plans before the building was commenced, but the Council should bave stopped defendant and saved bira the expense if they objected to tbe building. Tbe|Conncil bad not dealt with tbe plans as specified by clause 278 within four days, and bis client was therefore entitled to some consideration. His client was prepared to pay for,his breach of tbe by law. In conclusion, he thought there were other things in the bylaws which required rectifying The duty of tbe Council was only to see tbe materials required by the by»laws were used, and the provisions in other respects of the bylaws .observed. Tbe Council was not required to act as architect and test tbe calculations, etc, in matters not.affected by the by law. He thought his client was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and was justified in proceeding with tbe building. -The Magistrate said there were two clauses which were practically tbe same, and one should* be repealed— one gave fourteen days and tbe other four days. He would like to say that he thought tbe by law enforcing build* ing in brick, stone and concrete was too severe for the Council to adopt, and that it was practically identical with the by law. for the inner circle of Christchurch City. He only men tioned this quite outside the case before Lim, He considered a breach of the bylaw bad been committed, and defendant would be fined 10s, and 7a costs
Permanent link to this item
BREACH AKAROA BOROUGH BY-LAWS., Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LXXII, Issue 4384, 3 April 1914
BREACH AKAROA BOROUGH BY-LAWS. Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LXXII, Issue 4384, 3 April 1914
Using This Item
Akaroa Mail Co is the copyright owner for the Akaroa Mail. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Akaroa Mail Co. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.