The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1882.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3542, 15 November 1882, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1882.

The recommendation of the Public Works Committee to the Municipal Council in reference to the amendment of the building regulations is, we think, likely to be acted upon. Although Byelaw No. 19 containing these regulations cannot be said to have been resolved upon hurriedly, seeing that it was made to come into force not earlier than eighteen months after it was passed, still no one can think that it received the serious attention of the Council when its importance is fully weighed. For a small town like Napier the Bye-law was a tremendous piece of legislation, voluminous in its clauses, and minute in its details. Under its regulations the town was divided into three districts, in each of which separate rules are to be enforced in the matter of building. The word " building" apparently includes everything, from the smallest outhouse to a mansion. There has been no loop-hole left to creep through this Bye-law, aud the proverbial coach-and-four would be out of the question. The Regulations during sixteen out of the eighteen months of their abeyance were forgotten, and then a rush was made to evade them so far as regarded No. 1 district. It was then felt that the Bye-law was altogether premature, that nothing half so stringent would be required in ten years hence. It was then considered, and not till then, that the great majority of buildings in District No. 1 are situated oh leasehold property, and that any necessity for rebuilding arising would mean a load of debt that very few could stand under. There may be many storekeepers in the principal streets who in the course of time would gladly enlarge tbeir premises, but in view of this terrible Bye-law such a proceeding would be almost impossible. The section ot land now vacant by the removal of the late residence of Dr. Spencer is likely to remain unoccupied in the face of regulations that compel the erection of stove, brick, or concrete buildings. The value of building sites has been materially depreciated by this hard and fast law, which does good to no one except to afford additional protection to insurance companies. Nothing could have been devised better calculated to put the ratepayers to additional expense and annoyance, and to drive business people to another centre where they would not be hampered at every turn. To those who desire and can afford to build with incombustible materials neither the retention nor the abolition of the bye-law can make any difference. But there are very few who can afford the luxury of building in such a way as to save the additional cost by the reduction of insurance rates. That there should be some sort of building regulations for the better prevention of the spread of conflagration no one will deny, but beyond relating to roofs and party-walls, chimneys, and hearths, we scarcely think they need go. As the Bye-law exists now it is simply a nuisance to people who wish to make trifling alterations, and it is certainly a standing menace to the progress of the town.