BATHING SHED

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 August 1946, Page 3

BATHING SHED

BUILDING WITHOUT PERMIT ALLEGED LENGTHY LEGAL ARGUMENT (p.A.) AUCKLAND, August 2. An information laid by the District Building Controller against It. J. Kerridge, alleging that he proceeded with the construction of a bathing shed at Portland road, Remuera. without obtaining a permit from the local authority, led to extensive , legal argument before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M. In 1942-44, said Mr. Rosen. for the prosecution, a prefabricated concrete tank was installed on the defendant’s premises to be used as a swimming pool. Nothing further was done lor some time, but in May of this year a building inspector culled at Portland road and found that certain work had been resumed. Two brick sheds had been almost completely erected at one end of the swimming pool, but they were without a roof.

A representative of the Building Controller’s office said approximately 7000 bricks were used, sufficient for the construction oi‘ a brick veneer house of about 850 square feet. It was denied that the bricks were second-hand.

To some extent the defendant welcomed the present information, .said Mr. Barrowclough, for Kerridge. There had been a good deal of talk about a “tiled swimming pool.” It ■was quite clear there was not such a pool in spite of what had been, said in responsible quarters, which should have known better. Some time ago the defendant had excavated for the pool-and it was thought, when he started, that no permit would be necessary, as the concrete blocks used were of no use for any other purpose. However, the defendant had been told he could not proceed without a permit, and work had been discontinued. Brick construction had been intended to stop spoil exert voted from the pool from drifting over the property, although it was conceded it would form part of a tool or bathing shed when the work was completed. The bricks used had already been on defendant’s property. It was 'submitted that a permit was not required. Decision was reserved.