BEHIND THE BYLAWS

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 87, 9 October 1920, Page 9

BEHIND THE BYLAWS

PROPOSAL REJECTED BY

CITY COUNCIL

SUBDIVISIONS AGAIN DISCUSSED.

The City Council's policy concerning the administration of the Act relating to subdivisions of property was discussed by the City Council at a special meeting yesterday afternoon. Certain applications have been made for subdivisions in cases where the frontage does not comply with the present Act. However houses had been erected prior to the passing of the Act, and it is held that if the owners of these properties were not allowed to subdivide they would suffer a hardship that was never intended. Under the circumstances the houses could not be sold separately. The Bylaws Committee asked the council to definitely settle the policy for the future. The committee recommended that the subdivisions be permitted. The actual recommendation read ; "That the council, for the guidance of the committee in dealing with subdivisions, approve generally the principle that subdivisions be approved where the houses on the land have been erected in conformity with bylaws existing at the time of erection of the building, and whera it is possible to re-erect such buildings without committing n breach of the requirements of The Municipal Corporations Act."

A memorandum from the City Engineer (Mr. W. H. Morton) was as'follows: "In order to prevent continuing and recurring discussions concerning this question, I am of opinion that where houses have been erected in conformity with the bylaws, and where it is possible" to reerect such houses without conflict with the requirements of The Municipal Corporations Act, that such stibdivisions should be approved—excepting only where sonio outstanding conditions render it advisable to refuse such consent. At tho present time I am working under considerable difficulties in not knowing exactly the opinion of the council on such matters. I think those opinions should be made known and a general principle laid down in order to facilitate the passing of such plans. All these applications require a considerable amount of caro and take up a considerable an.ount of time in this office, and I would suggest that the council consider the above recommendation with a view to future guidance."

The Mayor (Mr. J. P. Luke) said ho had 1 hoped that the new Municipal Corporations Act would have been available for the council that day. He reiterated his opinion that if the council was going to adopt a scheme of street-widening and town-planning it was useless to permit a continuance of narrow sections. The general good of the community must take precedence over the finances of any private individual. The only way out of the difficulty was for the council to buy properties and re-model them on modern lines—that was in cases where undue hardship was proved. He could instance cases where houses had only a 15 foot'frontage. The council should not do anything which would perpetuate such conditions. Councillor M. F. Luckie, chairman of the Bylaws Committee, traced the history that had led up to the present unsatisfactory position, and moved that the committee's recommendation be adopted. He pointed oub that the Act of 1917 was intended to deal with new sub-divisions of properties, not with former subdivisions which had been made in compliance with the then law. It was manifestly unjust that the council should endeavour to bring about public good by inflicting injustice on the private individual. The proper course for the council to adopt, if it desired to effect improvement, was to buy the properties concerned. The fault existing' originally rested with those who planned the city. Councillor J. M. Dale seconded the recommendation pro forma.

The Mayor pointed out that there was no great urgency in passing the recommendation, as the Municipal Corporations Bill was now before the House, and in another week's time the council would be in a bettei- position to judge the situation. Councillor Luckie: "Then the harm will have been done." | Councillor Dale asked whether there were any buildings existing in Wellington which were not erected in accordance with the then existing bylaws? Councillors : "Lots of them." Councillor Dale said that at the present time there was no uniformity between the existing building and subdivision bylaws, and obviously there should be an agreement between the two. He thought they should settle that first before they attempted, to solve the problem then under discussion. Councillor P. Fraser, M.P., supported the Mayor's suggestion. He said that the cry of "the poor' property-holder" had always been raised to block progress. He thought it better to judge each case on its merits than to pass a resolution which would perpetuate slum methodsfor all time. Councillor T. Forsyth said the ques-' tion at issue was whether a block of houses was to be owned by one landlord or whether each house of that block was to be separately owned. Coiincillor Chapman accused Councillor Luckie of obscuring the issue. There was no guarantee that if the properties were sub-divided the houses so affected could be individually owned. Councillor M'Kenzie contended that it was never intended that the bylaw should be retrospective. On a division the recommendation was rejected on the casting vote of the Mayor. The voting was as follows: — Ayes. Councillors Bennett, Burn, Fraser Hutchison, Luckie, M'Kenzie, Norwood and Thompson; noes, the M:ayor.' Councillors Burns, Chapman. Dale, Gaudin Shoriand, Forsyth, and Wright.