HOUSE WITHOUT PERMIT

Press, Volume LXXXIIi, Issue 25302, 30 September 1947, Page 6

HOUSE WITHOUT PERMIT

Demolition Order To Be Served PREMISES NOW OCCUPIED A demolition order is to be served by the Christchurch City Council on the owner of a property at 62 Charles street, who built a small house —the third on the property—without obtaining a permit. The council at its meeting last evening adopted a recommendation from the housing and townplanning committee to this effect. The chairman of the committee (Cr. G. D. Griffiths) said iri his report that several weeks ago a building inspector had noticed an old Army hut on the premises at 62 Charles street, and noted that a start was being made with the construction of concrete foundations, The owner stated that he intended to construct a small house. He was informed that because of the area and frontage, the special permission of the council would be required, and that he should apply immediately for a permit. Cr. Griffiths said that for some weeks after nothing further was done and it was assumed that the project had been dropped. A recent inspection showed that work had been started again, and the house .was almost completed. The owner was again told the position. ’ He did at that stage come to the office with some 1 plans, which were quite inadequate, and was told to bring in proper plans so the matter could be considered. The owner had since completed the house and. was now occupying it. “This man, it is obvious, has carried on with complete ignorance of any by-laws,” Cr. Griffiths said, in reply to a question. “We don’t like taking action when a man is trying to provide a home to-day; but if we allow people to go on doing these things, we. might as well have no by-laws.” Gr. L. G. Amos (referring to applications for temporary sleeping accommodation): You waived a lot tonight. j Cr. Griffiths replied that the bylaws had been waived for only limited periods for temporary accommodation. He .could see no way out of the Charles street case. Cr. Amos: Do you agree that the house should be shifted, holus bolus? Cr. W. L. King: No. The owner has to alter the part he put up without a permit. Cr. Griffiths: The point is that the man erected a separate house on the property. . Cr. King: And that one has to be pulled down. “The man already had two houses on the property, and this is the third one,” explained Cr. Griffiths. Cr. J. N. Clarke: That is terrible.