BUILDING BY-LAWS

Grey River Argus, 23 June 1944, Page 4

BUILDING BY-LAWS

Proceedings to be Taken

BY GREY BOROUGH COUNCIL Following the reception of a report of the Engineer (Mr A, J. Fairmaid) on building repair in a brick area, the Greymouth Borough Council decided at last evening's meeting, to institute legal proceedings against the owner of buildings at the corner of Herbert and Leonard Streets, ana a builder for allegedly not complying with Borough by-iaws .and as Cr I. r. Boustridge put it, “ignoring completely tne instructions of the en•crineer.,> The report stated: On March 16 it was reported that an old wooden building amongst a group of buildings owned by Mr P. J. McLean at the corner of Herbert and Leonard Streets was being repaired contrary to by-law requirements. The building was visited, and the report confirmed and Mr McLean was inter " viewed concerning the matter ana

he undertook that no repairs would be done beyond those to the wall on which work had begun and vvas almost completed. On Thursday, June 1, the building was again visited and it was found that repairs had been carried out on the other outside wall contrary to the undertaking given. Mr McLean was again mteiviewed and said that, the work had been done by a Mr Anderson, employed by him, but without ms knowledge. Through Mr Anderson, Mr McLean was advised that tne matter could be put in order by the erection of .a brick wall. The pudding in Question is but a small one and the "breach might be overlooked but in view of the action taken legarding repair of the nearby f u J’ nl “ ture factory of Messrs G. Schaef and Sons, the matter assumes a more serious aspect. Cr J. E. Stokes said that he thought that some action should be taken to see that these things were not done, irrespective of whether a permit had

been issued or not. Cr Boustridge asked what the Council could acquire now that the repair to the building had been comP "A recurring fine can be imposed not exceeding the value of the building,” said the engineer. “A final warning has been given to the builders in this town that they must have a permit before commencing repairs, and we cannot continue to give out final warnings,” said Cr Stokes. Cr Boustridge moved that the owner of the property and the builder be prosecuted under the by-laws and that the penalty asked for be a recurring one. “We have got to keep our hold on the town,” he said. ‘To do this we must take a firm stand. Action must be taken against any further offender.” Cr J'. B. Kent suggested that the matter be left to the engineer, .as perhaps the building was not worth a brick wall. . , “The position is clear, said tne Mayor, Mr F. A. Kitchingham. ‘‘Neither the owner nor the builder have applied for a permit. The only question is whether we should apply for a continuing penalty.” • Cr Stokes seconded the motion to institute legal proceedings. Cr G R. Harker then moved as an amendment, that that part of the motion asking that the penalty be a continuing one, be deleted, pointing out that it might cost those proceeded against £lOO. “It is too hard, ’ he .added. • , ~ Cr Hutchinson seconded the

amendment. “It seemed to me that we will not be successful,” commented Cr Kent, ’’and then we will be in a worse position than we were before. Cr A. L. McKay said that the builder or the owner' could have applied under the hardship clause of the by-laws for permission to make the repairs without brick. “Seeing that it is only a small building and that only a few studs were required, if the builder had come to us we probably would have granted him a permit under the hardship clause,” said the Mayor. "I don’t want anyone to think that I am weakening,” he added, “but it is only a store.” “It is a small shed and was formerly a stable,” said the engineer. “I am not interested in the brick wall part of it,” said Cr Boustridge, “but what I am concerned about is that the by-laws were broken in that no permit was applied for, and that though the engineer stopped the work it was carried on and completed. The engineer was completely ignored.” t , . The amendment was then put to the meeting, five voting for it, but the Mayor’s casting vole caused it to be lost. The motion was then carried. The Mayor pointed out that the penalty for the offence was a fine not exceeding £2O, and for a continuing offence, a fine not exceeding £5 a day.