FLATS WITHOUT PERMIT

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27750, 30 August 1955, Page 10

FLATS WITHOUT PERMIT

BREACH OF BUILDING BYLAWS

COMMITTEE- FAVOURS COMPLETION

Permission for the completion of a three-unit building, the owners of which were prosecuted ana fined in the Magistrate's Court for building without a permit, was recommended to the City Council by the housing and town planning committee last evening. The council decided to seek a legal opinion on its rights to grant a permit. “Mr and Mrs H. W. Anderson were prosecuted in the Magistrate’s Court early last year for building at 159 Innes road, contrary to the building permit and the city by-laws,” the committee’s report said. “Mr and Mrs Anderson proceeded without permission to erect a three-unit block of flats in a special residential area, where it is the council’s policy to allow two units only in new buildings. The siting of the building also did not comply with the bylaws, being too close to the west side boundary.

“Two units were eventually completed, and the third is still unfinished, requiring wall linings and windows. “The committee recommends that the owners be given permission to complete the third unit.” The report was listed as in committee, but after Cr. J. E. Tait had said that it should be dealt with in open meeting, the chairman of the committee (Cr. J. Mathison) said he had no objection. It had been taken in committee because individuals were involved, he said. * “If this is passed it means that our by-laws are going to become a laughing stock,” said Cr. C. Baldwin. The couple had been fined £54. Before the prosecution Mr Anderson had seen Cr. Baldwin, then chairman of the committee, when the City Engineer was present, and Cr. Baldwin had said he would not lift a little finger to help him, as he had wilfully flouted the bylaws and town planning. “Why the committee should now wish to whitewash the offence and the man concerned I don’t know,” said Cr. Baldwin. “By agreeing to the committee we are not only doing an injustice to the council and the Court, but a serious injustice to other persons we have prosecuted.” “The whole thing is very dangerous,” commented Cr. W. P. Glue. “The trouble was brought about by the individual himself. He started off on three flats when he was told he was only to build two. “I cannot see the staff or the solicitor being interested in prosecuting anyone in the future if we agree to this. The individual has his right to appeal.”

Ke knew of permits being granted for four units in special residential areas, said Cr. J. E. Jones. It was correct that Mr Anderson should be penalised for not getting a permit, but incorrect to say that he should not build a three-unit building, which would be a credit to the neighbourhood. “Splendid Building” “For anyone to suggest that the block is not desirable for three units, well they just want to have another look at themselves,” he said. “It is a splendid building. For the life of me I can’t see why they are opposed to a reasonable suggestion.” It seemed illogical for a man to flout the city by-laws and then be granted a permit, Cr. L. G. Amos said. It might mean that the council would lose the confidence of its officers. Privately, he had agreed with the chairman of the committee that the council should “try to find a way out,” said Cr. Tait; but he had looked into the matter further and thought it was too dangerous to agree to the committee’s recommendation.

At no stage had Mr Anderson approached him, said Cr. Mathison, in reply. At the suggestion of Cr. Jones he (Cr. Mathison) had looked at the building, and he was convinced that the council should have given a permit, even if it breached the by-laws. It would not be the first time that had been done.

As well as having to pay a substantial fine, the owner had lost rental for 18 months, which was a substantial amount, he said. have yet to know that anyone convicted and fined has to be dealt with in perpetuity.” He was in no doubt about the legality of the position, Cr. Mathison said, but he had no objection to it being referred to the City Solicitor, although it would be a costly business for the council if every small matter about which there might be a doubt was referred for legal opinion. The amendment that the matter be referred to the City Solicitor to see whether it would be “safe” for the council to issue a permit was carried on a division, the Mayor (Mr R. M. Macfarlane, M.P.), Crs. Tait, F. C. Penfold, Glue, M. McLean, Amos, A. R. Guthrey, W. J. Cowles, Baldwin, N. R. Forbes, and L. Christie voting for it, and Crs Mathison, M. B. Howard, T. H. McCombs T. Green J. E. Jones, and J. Shankland against it.