BUILDING BY-LAWS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21732, 14 March 1936, Page 16

BUILDING BY-LAWS

♦ _ UNUSUAL REQUEST TO COUNTT } .j „ : v . - “Sometimes these. applications end-®| in examples of how by-laws can be made to look ridiculous,” said Cr.,|| F. W. Freeman at last night’s meet?. ing of the Heathcote County Coun- || cil, discussing the application of a£3 resident to build a cottage at the’~i back of a public garage in street- ■ V.*|| The application had been refused‘Bs earlier in the meeting, counci How.# claiming that the by-laws would sot allow it to be but sion was later reopened. It was stated that there cases in Cashmere of houses buitt|9 over the top of a garage, but it claimed that the present tion: must fail because the gpragi||| was a public one and not a building; ’ ' * * Cr. Freeman said there was a*f| question whether, even if it reused :|i the application, the council ' ■ power to prevent the applicant go-|l| ing on 1 with the building, but the{|| matter was one, he said, for the plicant’s solicitor. He said thati|| cases had been known of appUca-|| tions made to the City Council permission to add living quarters tof|| business premises. They had refused, but the applicants had .ahead with the plan, putting <in other application, merely that “extensions to the building”j|| were required. This; was granted, the residential additions were builtijcj and were now in use. That one \yay in which by-laws had evaded, and to his own in New Brighton years ago garages||| and other outbuildings • had built in a manner to evade the by-'ij ■laws. Several councillors stated that tbtiygi plans sent in support of the »pphc*ui| tion before the council, gave a frontage which under the was manifestly insufficient. No further action was taken, the, WE application being declined. .. .