TAKAPUNA ANOMALY.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 250, 20 October 1921, Page 8

TAKAPUNA ANOMALY.

AST UNREASONABLE " BY-LAW TN THE EYES OF THE LAW. BUT APPROVED BY EXPERTS. | An important and interesting state- ( ment regarding the Takapuna quarter- • acre building nrea by-law, condemned by tlio Appeal Court as unreasonable, was | made by the Mayor. Mr. A. M. Gould.! , at last evening's meeting of the Borough |, Council. Mr. Gould *aid that the public did notj seem to know the precise grounns upon which the council had contended for the [ quarter-aero area. It had been stated. that these grounds had not. been put forward in Court, but as a matter of I fact the affldnvit of Mr. Jackson, cngi-i necr for the Waitcmata Crounty Council j -and therefore an expert—showed that' in March. 1011, Dr. Makjrill stated he I would not consent to any by-law fixing j tlio minimum area for the site for a, | dwellinghuuse at li-si< than a-quarter of i nil jure. The by-law that had been I quashed whs one taken over liy Taka- ( l>llllll. borough upon its formation, and successive councils had had the matter under consideration from time to time > with the advice of experts. Between thirty ami forty men had considered it, and rill had deemed it necessary to maintain quarter of an acrt. Since the Court of Appeal had delivered its judgment, Mr. (iould, along with the chairman of the Public Services Committee and the town clerk, had j waited upon the present public health j officer, and he had also stated that he. . would not ;:ive his approval to any- | thing less—he would not consider as! sufficient any area less than quarter of I an acre for Takapuna. The. reason was | of course, that experience had shown that upon some areas of the borough the absorbent, power of quarter of an acre during the wet season was not sufficient to dispose of the household drainage, nor could it be disposed of by means of ordinary tile drains or any other method at present available. The result was that household water in certain parts of the borough, which could | hardly be defined or clearly marked ofT from the rest of the borough, poured out into the water tables and created a nuisance, and was a constant source of trouble to tihe council in its efforts to maintain the public health in these areas. That was the reason the council felt justified in having contended for the retention of quarter of an acre. There, was this further disclosed by the public health officer. Rome years ago the Public Health Department. under authority given to the Minister, drafted model by-laws fixing the minimum area for counties, and the by-law drafted by the Public Health Department had ti.xed the minimum area of quarter of an acre. Tt further specified that where the frontage was less than stated in the j by-law, the minimum back area should be half an acre. Therefore, said Mr. Gould, the Court of Appeal not only found .that the Government were unreasonable in providing quarter of an acre in the unsewered area of Rotorua —necessary in the view of the Public Health Department, which the Takapuna Council could not disregard—but the Court had also run counter to the model by-laws drafted by that Department. Under these circumstances it seemed quite proper that t'hc council should communicate with the Public Health Department to see if the Minister proposed to legislate on the matter, ft seemed desirable to maintain quarter of an acre if it could be done. If the weight of evidence Was against the by-law—and they must take the word of the Appeal Court on that point—then perhaps they had been remiss in the matter of evidence, although Mr. Gould personally thought it, would have! been sufficient for the Court that the council was acting on the advice of the district health officer. Touching on the particular case in the Appeal Court, the Mayor said the absurdity was that the area in question was one-eighfch of an acre, and apparently the law allowed a person to Miy the by-law was unreasonable, and the council could not consider the real ;ioint. namely, whether one-eighth of an Hern was sufficient. It was unanimously decided to communicate with the Minister drawing attention to the judgment of the Appeal Court and to the power given to the Minister of Internal Affairs under section 36:? of the Municipal Corporations Act. and asking whether there was a disposition to uphold the quarter-acre area.