BUILDER FINED £50

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25553, 22 July 1948, Page 7

BUILDER FINED £50

—• — SCOPE OF PERMIT EXCEEDED “The circumstances in this case are almost unique. It is considered to be a serious breach of the regulations in that it was. flagrant and deliberate, and involved much more material than is usual in cases which come before this Court,” said Mr A. W. Brown, when he appeared for the District Building Controller, in a case heard before Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The case was one in which Andrew Archie Ell, a builder, was charged with proceeding with ’the erection of a house for John Close, at Cracroft terrace, which was not in accordance with the permit issued. Close was charged with aiding and abetting Ell. Mr A. B. Hobbs appeared for Ell, who pleaded guilty, and Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for Close, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Brown said that Close owned a section in an excellent site, and he arranged with Ell to build him a house. A plan was prepared and, when this was submitted, a permit was granted. The plan showed the total area of the proposed house to be 943 square feet. When a large part of the house wis built, an inspection was made, and it was found that, though in appearance and design the house was the same as shown on the plan, it had been expanded in every direction. Its area was 1700 square feet, and there was a basement of 286 square feet. The maximum allowable for a two-bedroom house was 1150 square feet The area of the house being built for Mr Close exceeded the area allowable for a five-bed-room house for two parents and six children. Mr Close was a single man. “There seems no doubt the builder knew what he was doing and the application was made with the object of hoodwinking the auuiorities so that he would get away with a larger building,” said Mr Brown. “The maximum penalty is a fine of £2OO or 12 months’ imprisonment or both. The Building Controller has power to order the-demolition of the house, but it would be only in extreme circumstances that this would be done. The Controller may impose some conditions on the tenancy-of this house, which is for a single man and his sister.”

Mr Ell had written to the Controller saying that Mr Close was ignorant of the regulations, that he (Ell) wanted to see the people satisfied, and his enthusiasm ran away with him. But Mr Close must have been put on his guard by the difference in price, and the inference was that he knew the permit was being exceeded, though there was no direct evidence, said Mr Brown. The Defence Mr Thomas submitted that it must be shown that his client had a guilty mind in the matter and, if that was not shown, the case against him must fail. John Close said he was retired and lived at 4 Cracroft terrace. His sister was an /nvalid and would be living with him. His present house was a large one, and he decided to build a smaller one. He had known Mr Ell for many years and had implicit confidence in him. When the plan was drawn up he spoke to Mr Ell about the building regulations, and Mr Ell said he would see to everything. When he showed Mr Ell through his present home, Mr "Ell said he would not get half the furniture into the new house. Witness found that this would be so, and he arranged with Mr Ell to enlarge the new house. He never thought any more about the regulations and left everything to Mr Ell. He had no idea the regulations were being broken. The Magistrate said he agreed with the submission made by Mr Thomas. The Inference could not be drawn that the defendant, Close, had aided and abetted the builder. The charge against Close was dismissed. Mr Hobbs said that Ell did not build a great many houses, but he built exceptionally good ones. In this instance he let his enthusiasm run ajvay with him. The house would not be much in excess of what would have been granted Mr Close and his invalid sister, when the latter would need a nurse or assistance in the home. The basement was formed by the foundations -for the walls and was not floored. Ell was fined £5O.