Council doubt about approach for permit

Press, 22 February 1978, Page 7

Council doubt about approach for permit

Ellesmere County councillors wondered aloud whether they were being manipulated into granting a building permit. A Springston owner of two acres and a half wants to build a house on the land, which he says he will use for market gardening. Eight months ago the same man applied for a building permit, saying he intended to use the land as a builder’s depot. His application was declined. “It seems to me he is coming a second time in another guise,” said the county chairman (Mr W. E. Walker). Cr R. L. Skilling said the man was “only taking this tack to get his building permit.” Cr J. S. Free suggested: “The gentleman has changed his lawyer, and come up with a new application.” Cr H. G. Stephens recalled that a neighbour of the applicant who intended using his adjacent small property for agricultural contracting purposes had been granted a building permit “six or seven years ago.” "We cannot be held responsible for what happened years ago,” said the chairman. “We are dealing with the situation as it is.” The county engineer (Mr G. L. Tapper) said that under town-planning ordinances the council had to decide whether a house was

essential to the viability of the 2|-acre block. If it was not, then a permit could not be issued, he said. “We have a lot of 2|-acre blocks in the county,” he said. He did not believe the. area was suitable for market gardening. “I would not agree,” said Cr W. T. Simpson. “It is good land round there.” Cr Stephens agreed. “It is quite worthless’ land,” said Cr W. Heslop. “But the use he would be putting it to might be better than any other use it would be put to.” Another councillor said: “The man should be given the benefit of the doubt.” “We have really forced the man to take this approach,” said Cr Heslop. This was the sort of pressure that made liars out of honest men, said Cr F. H. Eggleston. Obviously the land had been bought in good faith. The applicant had no statutory right to appeal to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board against the council’s decision, the county planner told the meeting. However, if he applied for a specified departure and was refused, he could appeal. A motion that the applicant be required to furnish an economic report on the feasibility of the venture was withdrawn, and, on a show of hands, the council decided, 7-5 to decline the application.