DELAYED SCHEME.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1938, Page 9

DELAYED SCHEME.

TOWN-PLANNING ACT. CITY COUNCIL DEFAULT. ACTION BY N.Z. BREWERIES. Under an originating summons issued by the New Zealand Breweries, Ltd. (Mr. James), to require the Auckland City Council (Mr. Stanton) to issue to the brewery company a permit for the erection of a new malthouse on its property fronting Soccombe's Road, argument was heard before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court to-day.

New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., said Mr. .Tames, owned a property with frontages to Khyber Pass Road, Mountain Road and Seccombe's Road. In September last they wanted to erect a new malthouse near the Seeeombe's Road frontage, and applied to the City Council for a permit. This was refused on the ground that the erection of a malthouse there was contrary to tbe council's proposed town-planning scheme. Air. James stated that the question at issue was whether a local authority which had made default in the preparation of its town-planning scheme, as required by the Act, could exercise powers given, under section 34 of that Act. Detailing the history and provisions of the Act, counsel said that it came into force in 1920, and enacted, first, that the town-planning schemes should be made and submitted to the Town Planning Board for approval by January 1. 1030. This was extended to 1932, "and then later to 1037, but still the Auckland City Council had not submitted its scheme to the board for approval. The. consequences, argued counsel, might be serious for some propertyowners, and he argued that by lettyig the time go by the local authority had deprived itself of the privilege of exercising such powers under the Act as it had used to refuse the permit sought by the New Zealand Breweries, Ltd. Zoning Resolutions.

Mr. Stanton, in reply, pointed out that the Auckland City Council had adopted a series of zoning resolutions under the Town Planning Act, and buildinjr permits were issued in accordance with those resolutions. There was no secrecy about the zoning resolutions, which were open to public inspection. There had been challenges of the council's refusal of permits, and these had been heard by the Town Planning Board, which had thus recognised the operatioii of the privileges of the Act in this respect so far as the Auckland City Council was concerned, despite the fact that a fully-prepared town planning scheme had not been submitted to the board. Council submit' :■;! that Xew Zealand Breweries, Ltd.. had a proper and recognised course to take, by' appeal to the Town Planning Board. Should the applicants consider they suffered hardship by the refusal of the permit, they had recourse, under section 34 of the Act, to the compensation Court. Mr. Stanton argued that the date for submission of the scheme to the board was not mandatory. Immediately a local body prepared a resolution to prepare a scheme it then possessed the powers conferred by section 34. The local body had then resolved to frame a scheme, but there was no obligation as to the time in which it completed it. (Proceeding.)