BUILDING BY-LAWS

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 220, 18 August 1931, Page 2

BUILDING BY-LAWS

PROPOSED LEGISLATION. CITY COUNCIL . RESOLUTION. Members of the City Council last evening gave considerable attention to a resolution affecting the model building by-laws at present before Parliament and decided to ask for an additional clause empowering local authorities' under certain conditions of appeal, to compel owners to alter dangerous structures which had been erected prior to the passing of the Act. The city engineer had submitted a report to the works committee detailing the result of his inspection of certain buildings with high parapets in Cuba ' Street, the Square, Broadway and Rangitikei Street and the committee reported that it had agreed that before taking action the engineer obtain particulars of the legislation which the Government intends to introduce regarding parapets and other building regulations. Cr Tremaine moved last evening that representations be made through the member for the district for an addition to the Building Regulations Act to give power to local authorities to compel owners of buildings abutting on the streets and erected before tho coming into operation of that Act to remove any ornaments or abutments which might be considered a danger to pedestrians during an earthquake. Tho mover outlined certain of the contents of the report made by the special committee set up to frame the by-laws and said that these referred to buildings erected after the passing of the legislation. A local authority' had power to pull down or otherwise remove any material considered dangerous and charge the cost of the operations to the person committing the breach of the by-laws. He urged that the legislation should be extended to cover buildings already existing. As to the onus being on the council’s engineer to determine what buildings came under the scope of the council’s powers, the responsibility would bo no greater. Many of the buildings in Palmerston North had parapets or abutments. It was for Parliament to say whether the additional authority should bo given.

Tho motion was seconded by Cr Keeble.

While agreeing with the motion, Cr Cameron said he thought that the onus on the engineer was too great and Vhe proposal might lead to a lot of litigation. One had to look at the matter from a commonsense point of view. Tlio powers might be unfair to the property owner. Even engineers- differed as to the safety of structures and there should be some provision for appeal by the owner before he was compelled to make alterations. The Mayor said that sending forward the resolution could do no harm. Cr. Free gave it as his opinion that in the model by-laws a standard for buildings would be set and they would, therefore, have the best authorities for guidance. Surely the ly-laws would be a good guide as to whether a local body should exercise its powers. Cr. Hodgens stated that the by-laws were only in draft form. He could not imagine provision for appeals being omitted from the legislation. Tho furtheir powers mentioned by Cr. Tremaine would surely be covered as far. as Appeals were concerned in any amendment to the by-laws. He supported the motion, being satisfied that provision would be made for appeals. Cr. Fitzherbert said ho agreed with Cr. Cameron, and in order to relieve the engineer of a great responsibility to a certain extent, and also the council, he moved the following amendment: “That in the event of the regulations not providing for an appeal, the owners have the right of appeal to a Magistrate to decide whether the council’s decisions in each case are reasonable or not.” The amendment was seconded by Cr. McLeod. Cr. Tremaine said that the question of building construction might be too technical for a magistrate to deal with —such matters as stresses, etc. The question might be better referred to a board of architects or other similar authorities such as the Public Works Department. The Mayor stated that a magistrate would bo competent to decide on the evidence, technical though it might be, whether the appeal was worthy or not. Cr. Hodgens said he felt that the Government regulations would provide for the right of appeal suggested in the amendment. Tim Mayor said the amendment was only a safeguard. The amended motion was finally carried.